Atkinson v. Robbins

U.S. District Court

Decided May 15, 1837

U.S. District Court · decided 1837-05-15

Exception was taken in the orphans’ court, by Mr. Semmes, for the legatees, and overruled by the judge, because, he says, the profits cannot be ascertained but by a comparison of the present value of the stock, with the value at the time of division; and because the orphans’ court, in practice, proceeds under the Maryland law, which requires an ap-praisement in all cases. contended that the orphans’ court had no jurisdiction to have an appraisement made, for the purpose…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1837-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1951

2 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

THE COURT,(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, contra,)

¶1affirmed uie decree of the orphans’ court.

CRANCH, Chief Judge,

¶2stated his opinion to be, that the rights of all parties under the will are to be decided by the law of Virginia. The powers and jurisdiction, only, of the orphans’ court are to be ascertained by the law of Maryland. The rights of the legatees, and of the executor, are to be governed by the law of Virginia. By that law the court is to fix the compensation of the executor. It is a right which the executor has under that law. The court in Virginia is not obliged to give the compensation in the form of commissions; but may take the commissions, (or rather the sum upon which commissions might be charged) as a guide to their discretion. So may the orphans’ court here. And the supreme court has decided in Nicholls v. Hodges, 1 Pet. [26 U. S.] 562, that the rate of compensation is exclusively in the cognizance of the orphans’ court, and its decision is conclusive.