The Law of Wills and the Administration of Estates

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1915 edition. Excerpt: ...Howze v. Howze, 14 Tex. 232. 48 Simmons v. Cabanne, 177 Mo. 345, 76 S. W. 618; Mueller v. Buenger, 184 Mo. 460, 83 S. W. 458, 67 L. R. A. 648, 105 Am. St. Rep. 541; Mcliahnn v. Hubbard, 217 Mo. 624, 118 S. W. 481. Suit for construction of will or to try title thereunder should not proceed until will contest is determined. State ex rel. v. McQuillin, 246 Mo. 517, 152 S. W. 347. ists, whether the suit be by an executor or administrator with the will annexed for directions in carrying out the will, or by a beneficiary against testamentary trustees. As courts of law, the federal courts may, where the necessary diversity of citizenship exists take jurisdiction, either by original action or by removal from the state court of any action to try title or recover real or personal property that would lie in the state court. The courts of the United States treat their jurisdiction in these matters as substitutionary in a sense, for the state jurisdiction. They insist that the execution, validity and probate of the will be established under the state law. If the will has been construed by the highest court of the state the federal court will follow such construction. It will follow also the 44 Security C0. v. Pratt, 65 Conn. 161, 32 Atl. 396; Toms v. Owen (0. C.) 52 Fed. 417; Wood v. Paine (C. C.) 66 Fed. S07 (R. 1.). 45 Parsons v. Lyman, 32 Conn. 566, Fed. Gas. No. 10,780. 46 Toms v. Owen (C. C.) 52 Fed. 417. 4? Barker v. Eastman (C. C.) 192 Fed. 659, following Edgerly v. Barker, 66 N. H. 434, 31 Atl. 900, 28 L. R. A. 328. Contra: Lane v. Vick, 3 How. 464, 11 L. Ed. 681. Where the circuit court of appeals has before it in the second trial of the same case a will previously construed by it, and meanwhile the highest court of...