Statement of the Case.

$1574.45, with interest, for their several shares of profits of the partnership received and held by Ballentine before his death, and should pay the same to them "out of the assets of the estate of said David Ballentine in his hands remaining to be administered," with costs; and that the defendant filed a petition for a rehearing, which was overruled on November 30, 1883.

That on January 24, 1884, the defendant, seeking, with the consent and connivance of the heirs, to embarrass and defeat the plaintiff and to avoid the payment of said decree, falsely and fraudulently represented to the county court of Lake County that all debts and claims against the estate had been paid and the estate had been distributed among the lawful heirs, and thereby obtained from that court an order declaring a final settlement of the estate and discharging him as administrator.

That on November 3, 1884, the defendant, "as administrator of said estate, filed in said United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas his bill of review against the plaintiffs, in which said Lawrence set out the decree recovered by the plaintiffs against him in said court as aforesaid, and that the plaintiffs were about to proceed against him for the recovery of the moneys therein mentioned in the State of Illinois, and in said bill of review prays that, until the matters in said bill of review contained could be inquired into, the plaintiffs might be restrained by said court from prosecuting said decree or proceeding in any manner to collect the moneys therein mentioned, and that said original decree so recovered by the plaintiffs might be reviewed and reversed for the reasons: 1st. That the facts upon which said decree was rendered were false and contrary to the evidence. 2d. Because said. decree was rendered against said Lawrence without service of process upon him or notice to him, or without any opportunity on his part to make defence thereto. 3d. Because of newly discovered evidence by said Lawrence in support of the defence to said suit. 4th. Because said Lawrence, being an administrator appointed not by the courts of Arkansas, but by the courts of Illinois, could not be sued in Arkansas."

Statement of the Case.

That the plaintiffs, "as soon as said bill of review was filed and they received notice thereof, desisted and refrained from proceeding to collect said decree until the matters in said bill of review set out could be passed upon by said court, and to that end they appeared in said court and filed their answer to said bill of review, and the plaintiffs as expeditiously as possible caused said bill of review to be brought to a hearing, and upon such hearing, and on or about April 16, 1888, said Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed said bill of review for want of equity, by reason whereof the said original decree so recovered as aforesaid by the plaintiffs against said Lawrence remains in full force and effect, and the plaintiffs are advised that they are entitled to recover from said Lawrence and said estate the amounts therein decreed to the plaintiffs, with interest and costs of said suit."

That the plaintiffs did not appear or present their claim in the Lake County court, nor in any way become parties to its proceedings, nor receive any notice thereof, or of the defendant's intention to obtain a final settlement and discharge in that court, until more than two years after the order had been entered; and that the defendant "purposely avoided giving the plaintiffs notice of said intended application, and intentionally suppressed from the plaintiffs the knowledge of the said settlement and discharge, for the purpose of carrying out his said fraudulent scheme and purpose to defeat the plaintiffs in the collection of their said debts;" and that the defendant, while falsely claiming to have paid out and distributed the estate according to the order of the county court, still retained in his hands, with the connivance of the heirs and distributees, sufficient assets to pay and satisfy the decree obtained by the plaintiffs against him as aforesaid.

The bill prayed for an account, for payment of the plaintiffs' claim out of the assets of the deceased, or, if he had not now sufficient assets, but had paid them out since he had notice of their suit in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas, that he might be adjudged guilty of a devastavit, and be decreed to pay to the plaintiffs de bonis propriis the sums mentioned in the decree in that suit, and for further relief.

Statement of the Case.

A demurrer to the bill for want of equity was heard before Mr. Justice Harlan and the Circuit Judge, and overruled, according to the opinion of the presiding justice. The defendant elected to stand by his demurrer; and admitted in open court that at the time of the entry of the decree of July 25, 1882, he, as administrator appointed in Illinois, had assets in his hands, after paying all other creditors, sufficient to satisfy that decree, and had since distributed those assets among the next of kin. A final decree was thereupon entered that the defendant pay to each of the plaintiffs the sum of $3136.67 and

costs.

The defendant appealed to this court; and the judges certitified that they were opposed in opinion upon several questions of law, substantially embodied in the following:

"1st. Whether it was competent for the administrator of David Ballentine, appointed under the laws of Illinois, to appear in the suit brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas by the plaintiffs herein, and submit himself to the jurisdiction of that court in respect to the matters involved in that suit?"

"6th. Whether the decree of July 25, 1882, recited in the bill, is void, simply because it was rendered against an administrator appointed in Illinois, voluntarily appearing therein and submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the court rendering the decree?

"7th. Did the decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas, rendered July 25, 1882, bind the defendant as the administrator of David Ballentine, deceased, appointed under the laws of Illinois, and the assets of the estate of said decedent in the State of Illinois in his hands as administrator, in the sense that the defendant was bound to pay said decree without further action against him or said estate by the plaintiffs, and, having settled said estate in and under the order of the county court of Lake County, Illinois, and obtained his discharge as such administrator from said county court without having paid said decree, is he, the defendant, now liable in this action?

"8th. Even if the decree of July 25, 1882, aforesaid was

Argument for Appellant.

not binding in the sense last above mentioned, did the said decree become binding, in the sense last above mentioned, by reason of and upon the rendition of the decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas on or about April 16, 1888, dismissing the bill of review in the plaintiffs' bill mentioned?"

Mr. Henry A. Gardner and Mr. Willian McFadon for appellant.

The statue of limitations of Illinois, as to filing claims against the estate of a deceased person, binds a non-resident creditor. Morgan v. Hamlet, 113 U. S. 449.

It was not competent for the appellant as administrator by the appointment of the county court of Lake County, Illinois, to appear in the suit of appellees, brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas, and submit himself to the jurisdiction of that court. Judy v. Kelly, 11 Illinois, 211; S. C. 50 Am. Dec. 455; McGarvey v. Darnall, 134 Illinois, 367; Durrie v. Blauvelt, 49 N. J. Law (20 Vroom) 114; Caldwell v. Harding, 5 Blatchford, 501.

The rule is uniform that no action can be maintained against an administrator, founded on a debt due from the estate of the decedent, unless such administrator has been qualified by a probate tribunal in the state and county where the suit is brought. Caldwell v. Harding, 5 Blatchford, 501; Vaughan v. Northup, 15 Pet. 1; Mellus v. Thompson, 1 Cliff. 125; Kerr v. Moon, 9 Wheat. 565; Peale v. Phipps, 14 How. 368; Judy v. Kelly, 11 Illinois, 211; S. C. 50 Am. Dec. 455; Aspden v. Nixon, 4 How. 467; Johnson v. Powers, 139 U. S. 159; Low v. Bartlett, 8 Allen, 259.

Suppose that the appellant had been appointed by proper legal authority, and by one of the probate courts within the State of Arkansas, administrator of the estate of David Ballentine, deceased, and the same decree of July 25, 1882, had been recovered against him in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas, it is clear that such decree of July 25, 1882, would have no binding effect

Opinion of the Court.

upon the assets being administered by appellant as administrator under appointment by one of the probate courts of Illinois, and that such decree rendered by the Circuit Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Arkansas would not have been evidence against appellant as administrator in Illinois of any debt, and that, notwithstanding such decree of July 25, 1882, against him as an Arkansas administrator, the appellees, had they sued in Illinois, must have sued appellant as administrator in the courts of Illinois, not upon the said decree, but upon the original cause of action on which the said decree was recovered.

Now, it being the fact that appellant never was appointed administrator by any court of Arkansas, can it be logically contended that the decree of July 25, 1882, rendered against him in Arkansas, should have any greater force against him as administrator appointed by and administering the estate of David Ballentine, deceased, in the county court of Lake County, Illinois, than the same decree would have had, had he been properly appointed administrator by the proper court in Arkansas? It seems to us that the statement of the position carries with it its own refutation.

The dismissal of the bill of review mentioned in the bill of complainant on April 16, 1888, could give no greater force to the decree of July 25, 1882, than it had in the first instance by reason of its rendition. 2 Daniell, Ch. Pract. §§ 1582, 1585.

Mr. Henry S. Robbins for appellees.

MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

The claim of each appellee being for less than $5000, the jurisdiction of this court is limited to the questions of law presented by the certificate of division of opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court. Chicago Union Bank v. Kansas City Bank, 136 U. S. 223.

The defendant was appointed administrator of David Ballentine's estate in Illinois only. As such administrator, he