EX PARTE SIMONS, PETITIONER

U.S. | 1918-06-03
No. 26
247 U.S. 231 Supreme Court of the United States (1918) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 62 L. Ed. 1094 · 38 S. Ct. 497 · 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1904 · SCDB 1917-134
Cited by 155 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

A widow's estate appealed an order by a federal district judge transferring a plaintiff's claim for breach of a contract to bequeath money from the law side to the equity side of court. The Supreme Court held that contracts to make testamentary provisions are valid and enforceable through an action for damages at law, just like any other contract, and therefore the district court erred in transferring the case to equity, depriving the plaintiff of her right to a jury trial. The Court issued a mandamus order requiring the district court to restore jurisdiction over the law claim.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Holmes

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a petition for mandamus, or, if that is denied, for prohibition or certiorari', to the District Court for the Southern District of New York upon the following facts. The petitioner brought an action in two counts against the executors of. a widow named Mrs. Frank Leslie. The first count alleged a promise by Mrs. Leslie that if the plaintiff would perform certain personal services of attendance and care to her, she would bequeath to the plaintiff $50,000. It set forth the performance of .the services in great detail, alleged the death of Mrs. Leslie and probate of her will, the beqúest to the plaintiff of not more than $10,000, and claimed $40,000 with interest from one year after the death of the. testatrix, as damages. The second count repeats by reference the averments of the first count, but alleges a promise to pay the reasonable value of the plaintiff’s services, set at $50,000, of which $10,000 have been satisfied by legacy, and claims damages as before. On motion of the defendants the' judge sitting to hear motions in the District Court ordered the first cause of action to be transferred to the equity side of the Court and docketed as an equity cause, and to be stricken out of the complaint in the action at law, but only for the purpose of transfer, allowing the plaintiff to amend, &c. The ground disclosed-was that by the. law of New York the plaintiff could not sustain the first cause of action at law.

We do not find sufficient ground for the opinion of the judge in the New York decisions. No doubt alleged contracts to make a provision by will must be approached with great caution in the matter of proof, but there is no doubt that if proved they are valid so far as no statute intervenes. So much seems to be assumed by the order of the judge, and is the law we believe of New York as well as of other States and England. But if valid, we see no reason why a contract to bequeath a certain sum should not give rise to an action for damages if broken, as certainly as a contract to pay the same sum in the Contract-or’s life, or at the moment of the contractor’s death. Parker v. Coburn, 10 Allen, 82. In cases of contracts to leave all the testator’s property, including land, or a proportion of a residue requiring an account to ascertain it, equitable remedies have been thought proper, and in some such cases it has been assumed for thé purposes of argument that an action would not lie at common law. See Winne v. Winne, 166 N. Y. 263. Phalen v. United States Trust Co., 186 N. Y. 178. But we have seen nothing that suggests an arbitrary departure by the Courts of New York from the common law in cases like the present. See Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Mortimer, 219 N. Y. 290, 295. DeCicco v. Schweizer, 221 N. Y. 431. Silvester’s Case, Popham, 148, 2 Roll. R. 104. Fenton v. Emblers, 3 Burr. 1279. Van Houten v. Van Houten, 89 N. J. L. 301. Krell v. Codman, 154 Massachusetts, 454.

If we are right, the order was wrong and deprived the plaintiff of her right to a trial by jury. It is an order that should be dealt with now, before the plaintiff is put to. the difficulties and the Courts to the inconvenience that would be raised by a severance that ultimately must be held to have been required under a mistake. It does not matter very much in. what form ah extraordinary remedy is afforded in this case. But as the order may be regarded as having repudiated jurisdiction of the first count, mandamus may be adopted to require the District Court to produce and to give the plaintiff her right to a trial at common law. See Brown v. Circuit Judge of Kalamazoo County, 75 Michigan, 274.

Rule absolute.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (44 total)

  • Exch. Nat'l Bank of Tampa v. Bryan, 122 Fla. 479 (Fla. 1936)
    …and was answered in the affirmative. Contracts of this character have been generally upheld in the absence of statute requiring them to be in writing. The rule universally followed was well stated in the matter of the application of Ex parte Simons, 247 U. S. 231, 38 Sup. Ct. 497, 62 L. Ed. 1094, where the Court held that no doubt alleged contracts to make a provision by will must be approached with great caution in the matter of proof, but there is no doubt that, if proved, they are valid so far as no statu…
    1 / 2
  • Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1943)
    …e considerations of comity between state and federal courts, thought to be controlling in Maryland v. Soper (No. 1), 270 U. S. 9, 29. [*32] The decisions of this Court on which respondents especially rely are not applicable here. In Ex parte Simons, 247 U. S. 231, the writ directed the district court to set aside its order transferring to the equity docket a case plainly triable at law by jury. The district court’s order was regarded by this Court “as having repudiated jurisdiction” of the suit. In Ex parte…
  • Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1959)
    …ford, 3 Pet. 433, 446. See also Galloway v. United States, 319 U. S. 372. Id., at 396 (dissenting opinion). For an example of the flexible procedures available under the Federal Rules, see Ring v. Spina, 166 F. 2d 546, 550. E. g., Ex parte Simons. 247 U. S. 231, 239-240; Ex parte Peterson, 253 U. S. 300, 305-306; Bereslavsky v. Caffey, 161 F. 2d 499 (C. A. 2d Cir.); Canister Co. v. Leahy, 191 F. 2d 255 (C. A. 3d Cir.); Black v. Boyd, 248 F. 2d 156, 160-161 (C. A. 6th Cir.). Cf. Bruckman v. Hollzer, 152 F.…

Previewing 3 of 44 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (24 total)

View all 24 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw