Atkinson v. Robbins

2 F. Cas. 114, 5 Cranch 312, 5 D.C. 312
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia·Decided May 15, 1837·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

THE COURT,

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, contra,)

affirmed uie decree of the orphans’ court.

CRANCH, Chief Judge,

stated his opinion to be, that the rights of all parties under the will are to be decided by the law of Virginia. The powers and jurisdiction, only, of the orphans’ court are to be ascertained by the law of Maryland. The rights of the legatees, and of the executor, are to be governed by the law of Virginia. By that law the court is to fix the compensation of the executor. It is a right which the executor has under that law. The court in Virginia is not obliged to give the compensation in the form of commissions; but may take the commissions, (or rather the sum upon which commissions might be charged) as a guide to their discretion. So may the orphans’ court here. And the supreme court has decided in Nicholls v. Hodges, 1 Pet. [26 U. S.] 562, that the rate of compensation is exclusively in the cognizance of the orphans’ court, and its decision is conclusive.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Atkinson v. Robbins, 2 F. Cas. 114, 5 Cranch 312, 5 D.C. 312 (circtddc 1837).

2 F. Cas. 114 (Atkinson v. Robbins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Swartz v. Swartz
101 N.E.2d 822 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1951)
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.
151 N.E. 610 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1926)
Cox v. Flagler
2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 423 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1887)
Hoyt v. . Thompson
5 N.Y. 320 (New York Court of Appeals, 1851)