Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Blackf. 52

Irving v. M'Lean

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1835

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1835-05-29

A bill in chancery was filed, in the Union Circuit Court, by Benjamin and Hannah M’Lean against James Irving. The facts as shown by the bill, answer, and depositions, so far as concerns the opinion of the Court, are as follows:— John M’Lean, resident in the state of Pennsylvania, died there a few years ago intestate, being possessed of considerable personal property, and leaving the complainants his heirs at law.

Relies on Kerr v. Devisees of a Moon · Dawes v. Boylston · Desesbats v. Berquier

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1835-05-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1921

5 state decisions

201835184018501860187018801890190019101920decided

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 →

Stevens, J.,

¶1after stating the facts in the cause, delivered the following opinion of the Court:

¶2Numerous objections are raised in this case, and divers errors assigned, but this opinion will be confined to one. We are met at the threshold by an objection which renders all further investigation useless.

¶3The complainants in the original bill have not shown that they are entitled to any relief. They claim as the children and heirs of John M’Lean, deceased, and the record expressly shows that the domicil of the intestate and his family was in the state of Pennsylvania, that he died there, and that the executor de son tort seized and possessed himself of the per*53sonal estate of the deceased in that country; hence the laws of that state must govern the rights of the complainants. -, Judge Kent says: “It has become a settled principle of international jurisprudence, and one-founded on a'comprehensive and enlightened sense of-public policy and convenience, that the disposition, succession to, and distribution of personal property, wherever situated, is governed by the law of the country of the owner’s or intestate’s domicil, at the time of his death, and not'by the conflicting laws of the various places where the goods happened to be situated.” ...... “ Personal property is subject to that law which governs the- person of the owner. Huberus lays down this to be the correct and common opinion.”- Bynkershoeck considers the-principle so well settled that none dare dispute it. Vattel thinks the rule to be well established by the laws of nations. 2 Kent, 429.

¶4This doctrine is also settled in England in the cases of Thorne v. Watkins, 2 Ves. 35.—Pipon v. Pipon, Amb. Rep. 25.—Burn v. Cole, ib. 415.—Bruce v. Bruce, 2 Bos. & Pull. 229, note.—Bempde v. Johnstone, 3 Ves. 198.—Somerville v. Lord Somerville, 5 Ves. 750.

¶5The rule as settled in England, arid by the general usage of nations, as to succession and distribution of real and personal property, has been repeatedly declared to constitute a part of the municipal jurisprudence of this country. 2 Kent’s Comm. 2 edit. 432.-3 Cranch’s Rep. 319.—7 ib. 115.—9 Wheat. 565.—1 Binn. 336.-3 Johns. Ch. Rep. 210.—4 ib. 469.—9 Mass. 337.—1 Mason’s Rep. 408.—1 Const. S. C. Rep. 292.—4 Greenl. Rep. 134.

¶6It is a rule about which there is’ no controversy, that Courts of justice cannot judicially take notice of foreign laws; they must be specially pleaded. Whether the complainants in this case are entitled to relief, or have any interest in the money in controversy, depends.solely upon the laws of Pennsylvania, and it is a question of law for the Court to decide; and therefore the bill should have averred their rights under the laws of that state, and should have set forth the law on which they relied, to enable the Court to determine whether they are entitled to any relief in the premises or not (1). There are other defects in the original bill which might, perhaps, have been reached by a proper demurrer. It is even left doubtful, in what character the complainants intend to charge Irving, whether as executor or as a trespasser. He is neither called *54upon to account or pay; the whole frame of the bill is unapt, and lacks many important averments.

J. Perry and S. Bigger, for the appellant.J.Rariden, for the appellees.Per Curiam.

¶7The decree is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, with directions to the Circuit Court to dismiss the. bill, &c.

¶8 Vide Stout v. Wood, Vol. 1 of these Rep. 71.—Elliott et al. v. Ray, 2 id. 31, and note.—Cone v. Cotton et al. Id. 82, and note.—Titus v. Scantling et ux. 3 id. 372.— West et al. v. Blake, Nov. term, 1836, post.

¶9The printed statute books of this state, and of the lato territories of Indiana and Illinois, purporting to be printed under tho authority of the state or territory, are evidence of the private acts therein contained. And the printed statute books of any other state or territory of the Union, purporting to be printed unde the authority of such state or territory, arc prima facie evidence of the public and private acts contained in them. Stat. 1834, p. 79.—Rev. Stat. 1838, p. 273.

/4/blackf/52 · .json · Public domain