DocketNumber: No. 412
Citation Numbers: 22 F. Supp. 896
Judges: Atwell
Filed Date: 4/6/1938
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/26/2022
E. F. Jackson died intestate in Benton county, Ark., in January, 1931. The First
That the plaintiff has demanded of the Texas administrator the proceeds it has on hand, but that it has refused to pay the same to him. He asks for a judgment for the amount that is now held by the Texas administrator. That such judgment be certified to the probate court of Nueces county for observance.
The defendant contends that the plaintiff has no right to bring this suit; that it has not, as yet, finished its administration, and, further, and most serious of all, that it has been ordered to pay the Missouri and Arkansas claims, which aggregate more than the amount of money it has.
It is the rule in this state, as well as the rule in the nation, that when an ancillary administration has concluded its work of garnering and converting into cash, the funds shall be turned over to the parent administrator in the foreign state. Saner-Ragley Lbr. Co. v. Spivey, Tex.Com.App., 238 S.W. 912.
Apparently, the complication in the present situation is that the Texas court has allowed claims that should not have been allowed. The six claims from Missouri and Arkansas, based upon foreign judgments, are void, in so far as their right to be recognized in the Nueces county court is concerned. Stacy v. Thrasher, 6 How. 44, 12 L.Ed. 337; Johnson v. Powers, 139 U.S. 156, 159, 11 S.Ct. 525, 35 L.Ed. 112; Carrigan v. Semple, 72 Tex. 306, 12 S.W. 178; Turner v. Risor, 54 Ark. 33, 15 S.W. 13. But they have been allowed as claims and this court has no supervisory or appellate power over the probate court which made the orders. While it is true that void judgments may be ignored and fraudulent judgments may be set aside by the national court at the proper time, that proper time is after the judgments have become final. It must be assumed that the Nueces county court, upon proper application to rehear, will do what should be done with those claims that have no business there, and if it does not do so then it must be assumed that the appellate courts will order a refusal of approval.
Aside from those questions, 'however, there is an insuperable objection to the plaintiff’s suit. As administrator of Benton county, Ark., he has no extraterritorial authority. His authority is local. As such, he cannot enter Texas courts. Ancillary letters in this state, where the statute does not give the right of entry, are necessary to support his appearance. Robinson v. First Nat. Bank of Plainview et al., 5 Cir., 55 F.2d 209, affirming same case, D.C., 45 F.2d 613; Moore v. Petty, 8 Cir., 135 F. 668.
A foreign administrator in Texas must show an ancillary grant of letters in this state, since no law of Texas confers upon him such privilege, or that the action upon which he declares is an assertion of his own right, or that the right has accrued directly to him through his contract or transaction. There is no exception to this rule. The cases cited by counsel for plaintiff do not support the position he takes. Neither Moore v. Petty, supra, nor Kane v. Paul, 14 Pet. 33, 10 L.Ed. 341, contain anything contrary to the general position just stated.
It follows that the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss must be sustained.