Opinion
06-25-1888
ADAMS v. ADAMS et al.
Potter & Nixon, for petitioner. D. J. Pancoast, for defendants.
Bill to construe a will.
Revision N. J. p. 775, § 108, referred to in the opinion, provides that the decree of the orphans' court on the final settlement of executors' accounts shall be conclusive upon all parties, and shall exonerate and forever discharge every such executor from all demands.
Potter & Nixon, for petitioner. D. J. Pancoast, for defendants.
BIRD, V. C. The complainant filed her bill asking for the construction of the last will of her late husband, and praying that it might be decreed that she was entitled to a certain interest in the estate left by her husband during her life. The executors of the said will were made defendants, and they filed a plea showing that the orphans' court had approved their final accounts, and had also made a decree of distribution, and that they proceeded, under said decree, to make distribution of all the estate in their hands. This fact appearing, the complainant now asks for leave to amend her bill so as to show this fact, and also the additional fact that she had no actual notice of the proceedings in the orphans' court; and only such constructive notice as arises from the publication of the notice required by statute to be given by executors and administrators of the settlement of their accounts. This application is resisted on the ground that the matter in controversy has once been adjudicated by a competent tribunal. Revision, pp. 775, 785, §§ 108, 151. In such cases, the executor or administrator is protected by the statute; but I infer from the decisions that the shield of the statute extends no further. In Exton v. Zule, 14 N. J. Eq. 501, Chancellor GREEN (Chief Justice WHELPLEY concurring)said: "If a party entitled to a distributive share is, by the decree, deprived of his rights, without actual notice and without a hearing, his only remedy is against the distributees who have received the estate." To the same effect is David v. Frow, 1 Mylne & K. 200; Sawyer v. Birchmore, 2 Mylne & C. 611; and Sayre v. Sayre, 16 N. J. Eq. 505. These principles—the want of actual notice, and not being heard—come with much force in this case; for the complainant claims that she is entitled, under the will of her late husband, to a life-interest in all the residue of his estate; which, if true, deprives the distributees and legatees, who now hold it, of all benefit during her life. The court, in giving all the estate to the persons named in the decree, did so without hearing the complainant at all as to her rights under the will which the court was called upon to construe. I need not cite authorities to show that a person is not bound by a decree without a reasonable opportunity of being heard, except by express statutory provisions. In other words, a citizen cannot be deprived of his rights without due process of law. The complainant may amend.