Michigan Trust v. Ferry
United States Supreme Court
228 U.S. 346, 33 S. Ct. 550, 57 L. Ed. 867 (1913)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
William F. Ferry, the decedent, died in 1867 in Ottawa County, Michigan, and the probate court appointed Edward P. Ferry (defendant) as executor. In 1878, Edward P. moved to Utah and in 1892 became incompetent and was put under the guardianship of his two sons, W. Mont Ferry and Edward S. Ferry. In 1903, residuary legatees and devisees petitioned the Michigan court to remove Edward P. as executor and order him to account for the unadministered residue of the estate. The petitioners also asked that the Michigan Trust Company be appointed administrator de bonis (an administrator appointed by a court to replace an administrator of a will who can no longer execute the role). Notice of the hearing was given by publication and personally served in Utah to Edward P. and his guardians. By order of a Utah court, the guardians appeared and asked that a guardian ad litem (court-appointed guardian to protect the best interests of an incompetent party) be appointed. The guardian ad litem was appointed, and the Michigan Trust Company was appointed administer de bonis. After various proceedings, Edward P. was found to be indebted to the estate and ordered to pay $915,355.08 to the Michigan Trust Company within 60 days. Suits followed in Utah to enforce the Michigan probate court judgment. The lower courts in Utah sustained Edward P.’s demurrers and dismissed the suit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holmes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.