DIXON'S EXECUTORS
v.
RAMSAY'S EXECUTORS
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.
In this case, the Supreme Court held that an executor of a deceased person who died in a foreign country cannot maintain an action in American courts solely on the basis of letters testamentary granted in the foreign jurisdiction, and that an executor's right to sue is limited to courts where those letters are recognized and valid. Chief Justice Marshall established that while an executor derives authority from the testator's will, the exercise of that authority through litigation is governed by the procedural laws of the jurisdiction where the suit is brought, not by the will itself.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Marshall, Ch. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court. — The question in this case is, whether the executor of a person who dies in a foreign country, can maintain an action in this, by virtue of letters testamentary granted to him in his own country.
It is contended, that this case differs from that of an administrator, which was formerly decided in this court, because an administrator derives his power over the estate of his intestate from the grant of the administration ; but an executor derives it from the will of his testator, which has invested him with his whole personal estate, wherever it may be. This distinction does certainly exist; but the consequences deduced from it, do not seem to follow. If an executor derived from the will of his testator a power to. maintain a suit, and obtain a judgment for a debt due to his testator, it would seem reasonable, that he should exercise that power, wherever the authority of the will was acknowledged; but if he maintains the *suit by virtue of his letters testamentary, he can only sue in courts to *- which the power of those letters extends. It is not, and cannot be denied,, that he sues by virtue of his letters testamentary; and consequently, in this, particular, he comes within the principle which was decided by the court in the case of an administrator. All rights to personal property are admitted to be regulated by the laws-of the country in which the testator lived ; but the suits for those rights, must be governed by the laws of that country in which the tribunal is. placed. No man can sue in the courts of any country, whatever his rights, may be, unless in conformity with the rules prescribed by the laws of that, country. The court can perceive the inconvenience which may often result from this principle, but it is an inconvenience for which no remedy is within the reach of this tribunal.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. Mitchell, 281 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1930)…e as of right in the federal courts in other States. From the earliest time, federal courts in one State have declined to take jurisdiction of suits by executors and administrators appointed in another State. Dixon’s Executors v. Ramsay’s Executors, 3 Cranch 319, 323. Kerr v. Moon, 9 Wheat. 565, 571. Vaughan v. Northup, 15 Pet. 1, 5. And since the decision of this Court in Booth v. Clark, 17 How. 322, it has been the practice in federal courts to limit such receivers to suits in the jurisdiction in which th…
-
Willard v. Wood, 135 U.S. 309 (U.S. 1890)
-
James Moody Vaughan and others v. Northup, 15 Pet. 1 (U.S. 1841)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Noonan v. Bradley, 9 Wall. 394 (U.S. 1869)
- Kerr v. The Devisees of A. Moon, 9 Wheat. 565 (U.S. 1824)