Horn v. Lockhart

Mr. Justice FIELD delivered the opinion of the court. The validity of the will of John Horn, deceased, is not a question for our consideration. The Circuit Court held that the statute of limitations of Alabama had barred the right of the complainants to contest its validity, and also that they were estopped from such contestation by accepting, without ■objection or protest, dividends of the property founded upon the directions of the will. The executor and principal de *579 visee does not, of course, controvert the correctness of this decision, as it sustains his position, and the complainants, have not appealed. The case, as presented to us, therefore, is one where an executor in Alabama is alleged to have misappropriated funds of an estate, to which legatees in Texas were entitled, and to enforce from' the executor an accounting and payment the legatees ask the aid of a court of the United States. The objection to the jurisdiction of the court, that two of the defendants were residents of Texas, the same State with the complainants, ivas met and obviated by the dismissal of the suit as to them. They were not indispensable parties, that is, their interests were not so interwoven and bound up with those of the complainants, or other parties, that no decree could be made without necessarily affecting them. And it was only the presence of parties thus situated which was essential to the jurisdiction of the court. The rights of the parties, other than the defendants who were citizens of Texas, could be, and were, adequately and fully determined without prejudice to the interests of those defendants. And the question always is, or should be, when objection is taken to the jurisdiction of the court by reason of the citizenship of some of the parties, whether to a decree authorized, by the case presented, they are indispensable parties, for if their interests are severable and a decree without prejudice to their rights can be made, the jurisdiction of the court should be retained and the suit dismissed as to them. * Upon the accounts presented by the executor to the probate court in Alabama for' settlement, it appears that he received moneys from the sales of property belonging to the estate of the testator, amounting to over seven thousand dollars, and invested the same in bonds of the Confederate States. By the decree of the probate court this investment was approved, and the executor was directed to pay the legatees their respective shares in those bonds. Now the question is whether this disposition of the moneys thus received, *580 and the decree of the court, are a sufficient answer on the part of the executor to the present suit of the legatees to compel an accounting and payment to them of their shares of those funds. If would seem that flmre could be but one answer to this question. The bonds of the Confederate States were issued for the avowed purpose of raising funds to prosecute the war then waged by them against the government of the United States. The investment was, therefore, a direct contribution to the resources of the Confederate government; it was an act giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States; and the invalidity of any transaction of that kind, from whatever source originating, ought not to be a debatable matter in the courts of the United States. No legislation of Alabama, no act of its convention, no judgment of its tribunals, and no decree of the Confederate government, could make such a transaction lawful. We admit that the acts of the several States in their individual capacities, and of their different departments of government, executive, judicial, and legislative, during the war, so far'as they did not impair or tend to impair the supremacy of the National authority, or the just rights of citizens under the Constitution, are, in general, to be treated as valid and binding. The existence of a state of insurrection and war did not loosen the bonds of society, or do away with civil government, or the regular administration of the laws. Order’was to be preserved, police, regulations maintained,, crime prosecuted, property protected, contracts enforced-, marriages celebrated, estates settled, and the transfer and' descent of property regulated precisely as in time of peace. No one tha.t we are aware of seriously questions the validity of judicial or legislative acts in the insurrectionary States,, touching these and kindred subjects, where they were not hostile in their purpose or mode of enforcement to the authority of the National government, and did not impair the rights of citizens under the Constitution. The validity of the action of the probate court of Alabama in the present ease in the settlement of the accounts of the executor we do *581 not question, except'so far as it approves the investment; of funds received by him in Confederate bonds, and directs payment to the legatees of their distributive shares in those bonds. Its action in this respect was an absolute nullity, and can afford no protection to the executor in the courts of the United States. The act of Alabama which the executor invokes in justification of the investment has been very properly pronounced unconstitutional by the highest tribunal of that State, * and the attempt of its legislature to release executors and trustees'from accounting for assets in their hands invested in a similar manner rests upon no firmer foundation. Had the legatees of the testator voluntarily accepted the bonds in discharge of their respective legacies, the case would have presented a very different aspect to us.' The estate might then have been treated as closed and settled, but such is not the fact. The bonds-were never accepted by the legatees, nor does it appear that the executor even went so far as to offer the bonds to them. It is urged by counsel for at least a modification of the judgment of the Circuit.Court, that the money received by the executor was in Confederate notes, which at the time constituted the currency of the Confederate States. It does not appear, however, that he was under any compulsion to receive the notes. The estate came into his haudsfin November, 1858, and no explanation is given for his delay in effecting a settlement untihthe war became flagrant. And even then he was not bound to part with the title to the property in.his hands without receiving an equivalent in good money', or such, at least, as the legatees were willing to accept. Decree affirmed. Dissenting, Mr. Justices S WAYNE, DAVIS, and STRONG. Note. At a subsequent day a motion for rehearing was made, and an elaborate brief by Mr. Phillips filed in support thereof. The motion, however, after advisement, was denied. Footnotes [*] See Barney v. City of Baltimore, 6 Wallace, 280; and Shields v. Barrow, 17 Howard, 130. [*] Houston v. Deloach, 43 Alabama, 364; Powell v. Boon & Booth, Ib. 459.