Hamilton v. Carrington
This text of 19 S.E. 616 (Hamilton v. Carrington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The defendants having answered the complaint, within twenty days after the service of such answers the plaintiffs asked leave to amend their complaint in certain particulars. Such motion came on to be heard by Judge Izlar, who filed the following order refusing such motion: “The plaintiffs ask leave to amend their complaint by alleging: 1. That Emma L. Cohen, administratrix of S. Yates Levy, has received assets amply sufficient to pay the debts in Georgia, and is, therefore, not entitled to receive the funds now in the hands of Master Sass, belonging to the estate of S. Yates Levy. 2. That the administratrix wasted certain assets which came into her hands in Georgia, and especially certain insurance money received in Georgia. The complaint states that Samuel Yates Levy was, at the time of his death, a resident of Savannah, in the State of Georgia, and that Emma L. Cohen had letters of administration granted to her upon the estate of the said S. Yates Levy, by the ordinary of Chatham County, in the State of Georgia, and also took out ancillary letters of administration in the Court of Probate for Charleston County. These amendments are intended to make her account before this court for funds received in Georgia, as domiciliary administratrix. This cannot be done. In his work on Executors anfl Administrators, paragraph 179, Mr. Schouler says: ‘But as to administrators whose appointments are necessarily derived from different sovereign jurisdictions, there is no privity, and according to the universal American rule, so independent are different ancillary administrations of the principal administrator and of each other, that property and assets received in one forum cannot be sued for, or its application compelled in [387]*387another.’ Mr. Wharton, in his work on Conflict of Laws, paragrah 616, says: ‘The general rule is that the foreign administrator of a foreign intestate cannot be called to account, so far as concerns assets received by him in the land of his appointment, except in the State where he took out letters of administration. The tribunal from which he takes out letters is that to which he is distinctly amenable.’ If Emma L. Cohen received assets of her intestate in Georgia which she had misapplied, the plaintiffs must seek redress in the courts of Georgia. Leave to amend is refused.”
It is the judgment of this court, that the appeal be dismissed, and the cause be remanded to the Circuit Court for such further proceedings, if any, that the parties may be advised are necessary or proper.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
19 S.E. 616, 41 S.C. 385, 1894 S.C. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-carrington-sc-1894.