The Statute of Missouri which, as construed by the Supreme Court
of that state, authorizes a special administrator, having charge of
the estate of a testator pending a contest as to the validity of
his will, to have a final settlement of his accounts, conclusive
against distributes, without giving notice to them is not repugnant
to the clause of the Constitution of the United States which
forbids a state to deprive any person of his property without due
process of law.
This case was brought before the Court on the following motions
made by defendant in error's counsel:
The court is moved to dismiss the writ of error or to affirm the
judgment herein on the following grounds
"1. This Court is without jurisdiction under § 709 of the
Revised Statutes."
"2. If any question cognizable under that section was in fact
decided, such decision was not necessary, and the judgment rendered
is supported on grounds which this Court has no jurisdiction to
review."
"G. G. VEST"
"
For Defendant in Error"
Page 127 U. S. 59
The case, as stated by the Court, was as follows:
By the statutes of Missouri relating to the granting of letters
testamentary and of administration, it is provided:
"If the validity of a will be contested, or the executor be a
minor or absent from the state, letters of administration shall be
granted, during the time of such contest, minority, or absence, to
some other person [other or different from the one charged with the
execution of the will,
Lamb v. Helm, 56 Mo. 432], who
shall take charge of the property and administer the same according
to law under the direction of the court and account for and pay and
deliver all the money and property of the estate to the executor or
regular administrator when qualified to act."
Gen.Stat. Missouri, 1865, c. 120, § 13; Rev.Stat.Missouri, 1879,
c. 1, art. 1, § 14. The present suit was brought in behalf
distributees to falsify a final settlement, made in one of the
probate courts of Missouri, of the accounts of a special
administrator who was appointed under the authority of the above
statute to take charge of and administer the property of a testator
pending a contest as to the validity of his will. The plaintiff
claims that at that settlement, the distributees were not
represented and did not have actual or constructive notice thereof.
After the contest as to the will ended, the probate court passed an
order stating the balance in the hands of the special
administrator, directing him to turn the same over to the executors
of the estate and providing for the discharge of himself and
sureties upon his filing in that court the receipt of the executors
for such balance. The executors having given their receipt for all
the property held by him, as shown by his final settlement, and the
same having been filed, an order was passed by the probate court
for the final discharge of the special administrator.
The Supreme Court of Missouri held in the present case that
while the laws of that state (Gen. Stat. 1865, c. 124, §§ 16-19;
Rev.Stat. 1879, §§ 238-241) required notice by publication of the
final settlement of executors and administrators, notice was not
required in respect to settlements of special
Page 127 U. S. 60
administrators in whose hands the property of a testator is
placed pending a contest as to the validity of his will. Its
language was:
"As was said in
Lamb v. Helm, 56 Mo. 433, 'such special
administrators occupy more nearly the position of a receiver who
acts under the direction of the court than they do the position of
a general administrator.' The special administrator is appointed
for temporary purposes only (
Hawkins v. Cunningham, 67 Mo.
415), and when the contest as to the will is over the nominated
executor qualifies, his functions are at an end, and he must settle
his accounts and turn over the property in his hands to the regular
executor or administrator. This accounting is his final accounting,
it is true, but it is not a final settlement of the estate
contemplated when notice is required to be given. There is no need
of any notice, for there is then a regular representative of the
estate with whom the settlement is made under the direction of the
probate court. The statute which provides for notice on final
settlements therefore has no application to settlements made by an
administrator
pendente lite, and notice is not
required."
"As to § 47, c. 120, which provides that if any administrator
die, resign, or his letters be revoked, he or his legal
representatives shall account to the successor, etc., it is
sufficient to say the section has no application to this case, for
here the special administrator neither resigned nor were his
letters revoked, but his powers ceased by operation of law, and the
express terms of the appointment. We do not intimate that in these
cases, notice of the settlement must be given, though when an
administrator desires to resign, notice of his intention to make
application to that end must be given. It follows that the judgment
of the probate court discharging the special administrator is final
and conclusive even as against the plaintiff, for there is no
saving clause as to minors or married women. The petition does not
seek relief on the ground of fraud."
RoBards v. Lamb, 80 Mo. 303.
Page 127 U. S. 61
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, after stating the facts in the foregoing
language, delivered the opinion of the Court.
The only question among those presented of which this Court can
take cognizance is whether the statute of Missouri, which
authorizes a special administrator having charge of the estate of a
testator pending a contest as to the validity of his
Page 127 U. S. 62
will, to have a final settlement of his accounts, without giving
notice to distributees, and which settlement, in the absence of
fraud, is deemed conclusive as against such distributees, is
repugnant to the clause of the Constitution of the United States
forbidding a state to deprive any person of his property without
due process of law. We have no difficulty in answering this
question in the negative. Without stating all the grounds upon
which this conclusion might be rested, it is sufficient to say that
in matters involved in the accounts of such special administrator,
the executor or administrator with the will annexed represents all
claiming under the will. The regular representative of the estate,
before passing his receipt to the special administrator, has an
opportunity to examine this settlement, and, if it is not
satisfactory, to contest its correctness by some appropriate
proceeding. When an executor or administrator with the will annexed
proposes to make a final settlement of his own accounts, he is
required to give notice to creditors and distributees, for there
are no other representatives of the estate. But when a special
administrator ceases to act as such -- that is, when his functions
cease by operation of law, he must account for the property and
estate in his hands to the executor or administrator with the will
annexed, who, in receiving what had been temporarily in the charge
of the former, acts for all interested in the distribution of the
estate. As, therefore, the regular representative of the estate has
an opportunity to contest the final settlement of the special
administrator before giving him an acquittance, it cannot be said
that the absence of notice to the distributees of such settlement
amounts to a deprivation of their rights of property without due
process of law.
The judgment is affirmed.