Slater v. Thompson

255 F. 768, 167 C.C.A. 112, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1522
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 13, 1919
DocketNo. 5222
StatusPublished

This text of 255 F. 768 (Slater v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Slater v. Thompson, 255 F. 768, 167 C.C.A. 112, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1522 (8th Cir. 1919).

Opinion

TRIEBER, District Judge.

[1] The first motion is made by Theodore Rassieur, as administrator de bonis non cum testamento annexo of the estate of Eleneious Smith, Anna E. Bomar, and Douglas W. Robert, appellees, to dismiss the appeal of Frank M. Slater, public administrator of the city of St. Louis, as administrator of D. T. Bomar. Bomar’s estate had been vested in the devisee under the will by the proper court of the state of Texas having probate jurisdiction of the estate, where the testator resided at the time of his death and where the will had been probated, before Slater as public administiator of the city of St. Louis, had attempted to take charge of that portion of the estate which was in the city of St. Louis, and before he was appointed administrator de bonis non cum testamento annexo. There was therefore no estate in the state of Missouri to be administered when Slater attempted to take possession of it. Morton v. Hatch, 54 Mo. 408; Richardson v. Busch, 198 Mo. 174 95 S. W. 894, 115 Am. St. Rep. 472.

[2] Again, Slater was appointed by virtue of his office as public administrator, without any other bond except his official bond. On [769]*769June 25, 1918, he was removed as public administrator and as administrator of this estate. He has had and has therefore no interest whatever in the estate and no further right to act therein. California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U. S. 308, 314, 13 Sup. Ct. 876, 37 L. Ed. 747; Kimball v. Kimball, 174 U. S. 158, 161, 19 Sup. Ct. 639, 43 L. Ed. 932; Tyler v. Judges of Court of Registration, 179 U. S. 405, 408, 21 Sup. Ct. 206, 45 L. Ed. 252; Keeley v. Ophir Hill Consolidated Mining Co., 169 Fed. 601, 605, 95 C. C. A. 99.

As Slater, before he was discharged as public administrator and as administrator of this estate, had no right to take charge of any part of it in the city of St. Rouis, his successor as public administrator James P. Newell, has no right to or interest in it, and his motion to be substituted for Slater in this suit must be denied, and the motion of Mr. Rassieur and others to dismiss the appeal of Slater herein fcnust be granted. Ret orders be entered accordingly.

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

Related

California v. San Pablo & Tulare Railroad
149 U.S. 308 (Supreme Court, 1893)
Kimball v. Kimball
174 U.S. 158 (Supreme Court, 1899)
Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration
179 U.S. 405 (Supreme Court, 1900)
Morton v. Hatch
54 Mo. 408 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1873)
Richardson v. Busch
95 S.W. 894 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1906)
Keely v. Ophir Hill Consol. Mining Co.
169 F. 601 (Eighth Circuit, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
255 F. 768, 167 C.C.A. 112, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slater-v-thompson-ca8-1919.