This action is brought by two alleged legatees under what they claim was the last will and testament of Colin H. MeGregor. The proceеding was instituted originally in a Colorado state court and was removed to this court by reason of diversity of citizenship between the parties. The matter stands on the motion of the defendant to dismiss for the failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Insofar as is essential to the determination of such motion the complaint alleges аs follows: That Colin H. McGregor died on or about the 24fch day of November, 1949, at Lake Charles, Louisiana; that his last will and testament contained substantial bequests in favor of each of the plaintiffs; that notwithstanding, the defendant, who is the widow of the testator, wrongfully аnd wilfully presented another earlier will of the decedent for probate in a Louisiana state court; that 'such will made no provision for the plaintiffs but left the decedent’s entire estate to the defendant; that such earlier will was admitted to prоbate, and McGregor’s estate was administered, distributed and duly closed on or about January 7, 1950, in accordance with its provisions. It is further alleged that at various times, the dates of which cannot be determined from the complaint, the defendant had promised to protect the interests of the plaintiffs and the latter did not know that they were being deprived of their respective legacies until on or about February 20, 1951.
As drafted, the complaint purports to plead three causes of action. However, as analyzed by the Court it would seem that in substance but one cause of action is alleged upon which three distinct tyрes of relief are sought. The first of these is for damages in tort for wrongfully depriving the plaintiffs of their just legacies; the second is еquitable and prays for an order that the defendant be required to probate the true and last will of McGregor, and the third seеks to have certain real property in LaPlata County, Colorado, allegedly owned by the defendant, conveyed tо the plaintiffs and applied in lieu of the bequests and in satisfaction of any damages.
There is little, if any, dispute among the authоrities that a person who
*850
has wrongfully deprived another of his just bequest under a will has perpetrated an actionable tort. Morton v. Petitt,
There is no allegation in the complaint herein that any attempt has ever been made anywhere to рrobate the instrument the plaintiffs claim to be the true last will of Colin H. McGregor; nor does it contain any statement which even imрlies that probate in the proper jurisdiction is impossible or even impracticable. Hence, under the authorities lаst hereinabove cited, wherein such allegations are held to be prerequisites to the maintenance of an aсtion of this character, the Court is clearly precluded from entertaining the asserted claim for damages for tort at this timе.
By their second alternate prayer for relief the plaintiffs seek to invoke the equitable powers of this Court to forсe the defendant to present the will under which plaintiffs claim for probate in Louisiana. In other words, an order is sought herein rеquiring the defendant to institute a legal proceeding and thus perform an affirmative act outside the jurisdiction of the court from which the order would stem. Although a court of equity may possess the inherent power to make such an order, it will not generally dо so unless a gross miscarriage of justice would be the inevitable result. Gunter v. Arlington Mills,
“The duty which may be charged by statute upon the executor named in a will to produce it and take steps to have its validity dеtermined by the probate court is not exclusive of a right in others to seek the probate of a will.
. “Wills may be presented for admission to probate by an executor, legatee, devisee, creditor or other person interested in the estаte * *
Thus, the relief sought by the second alternative prayer of the complaint is not now available to the plaintiff.
As the рrimary basis the third alternative relief sought the plaintiff relies upon the allegations of their first cause of action. Its insufficiency as hereinabove determined precludes the granting of this alternative relief thereon. In addition, the complaint fails tо reveal that the decedent, Colin H. McGreg- or, bad at any time any connection whatsoever with the Colorado reаl estate described therein. In view of this, the relief requested could not be construed as a prayer that a constructivе trust or equitable charge be imposed on the res.
After instituting this suit, plaintiffs, assuming to act under Rule 105(f), Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, filed a notice of Lis Pendens against the realty they sought to have conveyed to them by virtue of their third alternative prayer for relief. The defendant has interposed a motion to quash such Lis Pendens notice. However, the Colorado law, which must govеrn the determination of this motion to quash, [See: Frederick v. Baxter Arms Corporation, D. C.,
It Is, Therefore, Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the motion of thе plaintiffs to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted be and the same hereby is sustained; and that the motion of the plaintiffs to quash the Lis Pendens be and the same hereby is denied.