J. B. & J. M. Cornell Co. v. Ward

Second Circuit

J. B. & J. M. Cornell Co. v. Ward

168 F. 51, 93 C.C.A. 473, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4429

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 16, 1909

DocketNo. 191

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 168 F. 51 (J. B. & J. M. Cornell Co. v. Ward) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

J. B. & J. M. Cornell Co. v. Ward, 168 F. 51, 93 C.C.A. 473, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4429 (2d Cir. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The accident occurred in the state of New York, the statutes of which state provide that the executor or administrator ■of a decedent, who has left him or her surviving a husband, wife, or next of kin, may maintain an action to recover damages for a wrongful act, neglect, or default by which the death was caused. The damages recovered do not constitute any part of the decedent’s estate. They are exclusively for the benefit of such husband or wife or next •of kin. Code Civ. Proc. N. Y. §§ 1902, 1903. There is a similar statute in New Jersey. The deceased was a resident of Newark, N. J., and plaintiff was appointed administrator by the surrogate’s court in that state. At the time of bringing suit he had not taken out ancillary letters in New York, and no statute of that state gives a foreign administrator, who has not received such an appointment, any right to sue in its courts. It is well settled that an administrator appointed in one state cannot as such maintain an action in another state, which has not either by the issue of ancillary letters or by some special provision of statute given him authority so to sue. Noonan v. Bradley, 9 Wall. 394, 19 L. Ed. 757; Dennick v. Central Railway Co., 103 U. S. 11, 26 L. Ed. 439. The objection was duly raised on the trial, and exception was reserved. The objection is fatal, and the judgment must be reversed. Fortunately this error will not deprive the plaintiff of any substantial rjght. It appears that subsequent to the trial he has taken out ancillary letters, and the Circuit Court has power to allow amendment which will enable him to prosecute the suit as such administrator. Van Doren v. Pennsylvania R. R., 93 Fed. 260, 35 C. C. A. 282; Hodges v. Kimball, 91 Fed. 845, 34 C. C. A. 103.

The judgment is reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The accident occurred in the state of New York, the statutes of which state provide that the executor or administrator ■of a decedent, who has left him or her surviving a husband, wife, or next of kin, may maintain an action to recover damages for a wrongful act, neglect, or default by which the death was caused. The damages recovered do not constitute any part of the decedent’s estate. They are exclusively for the benefit of such husband or wife or next •of kin. Code Civ. Proc. N. Y. §§ 1902, 1903. There is a similar statute in New Jersey. The deceased was a resident of Newark, N. J., and plaintiff was appointed administrator by the surrogate’s court in that state. At the time of bringing suit he had not taken out ancillary letters in New York, and no statute of that state gives a foreign administrator, who has not received such an appointment, any right to sue in its courts. It is well settled that an administrator appointed in one state cannot as such maintain an action in another state, which has not either by the issue of ancillary letters or by some special provision of statute given him authority so to sue. Noonan v. Bradley, 9 Wall. 394, 19 L. Ed. 757; Dennick v. Central Railway Co., 103 U. S. 11, 26 L. Ed. 439. The objection was duly raised on the trial, and exception was reserved. The objection is fatal, and the judgment must be reversed. Fortunately this error will not deprive the plaintiff of any substantial rjght. It appears that subsequent to the trial he has taken out ancillary letters, and the Circuit Court has power to allow amendment which will enable him to prosecute the suit as such administrator. Van Doren v. Pennsylvania R. R., 93 Fed. 260, 35 C. C. A. 282; Hodges v. Kimball, 91 Fed. 845, 34 C. C. A. 103.

The judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 F. 51, 93 C.C.A. 473, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-b-j-m-cornell-co-v-ward-ca2-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack