RICE
v.
HOUSTON, ADMINISTRATOR
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.
The Supreme Court held that an administrator who is a citizen of a different state from the defendants has jurisdiction to sue in federal court, even if the deceased was a citizen of the same state as the defendants, because the administrator succeeds to the decedent's rights by operation of law and is considered the real party in interest. The Court affirmed that an administrator's right to sue in federal court is not affected by whether he was originally a citizen of the state where he obtained letters of administration, since individuals have the right to change their citizenship, and once changed in good faith, the administrator may access federal courts to collect debts owed by citizens of other states.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court.
The question of jurisdiction is the only point in the case.
Although in controversies between citizens of different States, it is the character of the real and not that of the nominal parties to the record which.determines the question of jurisdiction, yet it has been repeatedly held by this court that suits can be maintained in the Circuit Court by executors or administrators if they are citizens of a different State from the party sued, on the ground'that they are the real parties in interest, and succeed to all the rights of the testator or intestate by operation of law. And it makes no difference that the testator or intestate was a citizen of the same State with the defendants, and could not, if alive, have sued in the Federal courts; nor is the status of the parties affected by the fact that the creditors and legatees of the decedent are citizens of the same State with the defendants.*
In this state of the law on this subject, it is not perceived on what ground the right of Houston to maintain these suits can be questioned. He was a citizen of Kentucky, had the legal interest in the notes sued on, by virtue of the authority conferred on him by the court in Tennessee, and, therefore, had a right to bring his action in the Federal or State courts at his option.
It is to be presumed, in the absence of an averment in the pleadings to the contrary, that Houston, when appointed administrator, was a citizen of Kentucky, and if so the appointment was legal, for the laws of Tennessee do not forbid the probate courts of that State to intrust a citizen of another State with the duties of administering on the estate of a person domiciled at the time of his death in Tennessee.
But if the fact be otherwise, as seems to be admitted in argument, and Houston were a citizen of Tennessee at the time he got his letters of administration, the liability of the defendants to be sued in the Federal courts remains the same, because there is no statute of Tennessee requiring an administrator not to remove from the State, and the general law of the land allows any one to change his citizenship at his pleasure. After he has in good faith changed it, he has the privilege of going into the United States courts for the collection of debts due him by citizens of other States, whether he holds the debts in his own right or as administrator. Judgment affirmed.
*
Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch. 306, 307; Browne et al. v. Strode, 5 Id. 303 ; Childress’s Ex. v. Emory et al., 8 Wheaton, 669; Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Id. 856 ; McNutt v. Bland et al., 2 Howard, 15; Irvine v. Lowry, 14 Peters, 298; Huff v. Hutchinson, 14 Howard, 586; Coal Company v. Blatchford, 11 Wallace, 172.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mecom v. Fitzsimmons Drilling Co., Inc., 284 U.S. 183 (U.S. 1931)…g party, although their testators or intestates might not have been entitled to sue or been liable to suit in those courts for want of diversity of citizenship. Childress v. Emory, 8 Wheat. 642; Coal Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172; Rice v. Houston, 13 Wall. 66; Amory v. Amory, 95 U. S. 186; Blake v. McKim, 103 U. S. 336; American Bible Society v. Price, 110 U. S. 61; Continental Insurance Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237. It was, however, held by the court below that this principle is inapplicable to a case,…
-
Ingersoll v. Coram, 211 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1908)…she sues as administratrix, and she is a citizen of a different State from Leyson. Sere v. Pitot, 6 Cranch, 333; Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch, 308; Bushnell v. Kennedy, 9 Wall. 387; Coal Company v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172; Rice v. Houston, 13 Wall. 66. Respondents assert the identity of the action in Montana [*362] with the present suit, and upon that identity they urge that such action constitutes res judicata. Petitioner denies the identity of the actions, and urges besides that there is no su…
-
Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U.S. 315 (U.S. 1889)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch 306 (U.S. 1808)