Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/219

LEVI V, COLXJMBU LIFE INS. CO. 21t �tion of the court to that matter. The case was a peculiai one. This court was reversed, but the reason for the rever- sai, if it becomes this court to make any comments, are not satisfactory. Suffice it, however, that there was a reversai of the judgment. This court pursued the mandate of the supreme court in letter and spirit, and then the case went up a second time and that court shifted its ground. Hence, M'hether the case of Payne v. Hook is authority for anything is a question. �The principle involved was simply this : One of many dis- tribu tees of an estate, before final settlement or determination of the affairs of the estate in the proper tribunal, to wit, a probate court, filed a bill in this court against the administra- tor and his sureties, among other things, to charge him with the amount that would come to her, as distributee, on a final settlement and determination of the questions which were properly to be determined by the probate court. This court held that it could not be done. The supreme court said it could be done, because this particular distributee was a resi- dent of a state other than the state of Missouri. Now if that could be done in the case of a distributee, why could it not be done in the case of a creditor, and what would become of the probate administrations throughout the Union?, If there happened to be a non-resident creditor or distributee who chose to proceed in a federal tribunal, then there would be brought into the federal courts the administration of every such estate from one end of the Union to the other, and the probate laws would become of no force. �The supreme court said: "Under the federal constitution laws bave been passed that where there are citizens of differ- ent states the matter may be adjudicated in the federal courts, whether probate administration is involved or not. It is the duty of the courts, accordingly, to pass ùpon the matter, and render judgment." Another question was pre- sented, namely : There was a defect of parties ; only a pari of the distributees, not ail, was before the court ; henee, in the opinion of this court, the ground was taken as to the (Icfect of the parties in favor of the demurrer. The supreme ��� �