State ex Rel. Ware v. Butler

2 Citing cases

  1. Rocca v. Thompson

    223 U.S. 317 (1912)   Cited 81 times
    In Rocca v. Thompson, 223 U.S. 317 (1912), it was urged upon us that a Treaty granting consuls the right "to intervene in the possession, administration, and judicial liquidation of the estate of the deceased" also granted them the right to administer the property of the deceased, since that would effectuate the Treaty's "objects and purposes."

    Should a state law and treaty be in conflict, the state law must give way. Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 598; United States v. Forty-three Gallons Whisky, 93 U.S. 197, 198; Ware v. Hilton, 3 Dall. 235. Treaty provisions in regard to rights in estates must be construed in most liberal fashion, and are always paramount to state legislation.

  2. Wyers v. Arnold

    347 Mo. 413 (Mo. 1941)   Cited 11 times
    In Wyers v. Arnold, 347 Mo. 413, 147 S.W.2d 644, 134 A.L.R. 876, Babette Orth, a German national resident in Germany died, leaving, as the only assets of her estate, an interest in the estate of a brother, Carl Orth, who had died in Missouri.

    ck's Case, 80 N.J. Eq. 471; Higgins v. Eaton, 188 F. 938; Shaw v. Grimes, 187 Ky. 250, 218 S.W. 447; 1 Schouler on Wills (6 Ed.), secs. 16, 59; State of California v. McGlynn, 20 Cal. 231; Bogardus v. Clark, 4 Paige, 623; Cohen v. Herbert, 205 Mo. 537; Martin v. Stovall, 103 Tenn. 1, 48 L.R.A. 130; Evansville Ice Cold Storage Co. v. Winsor, 48 N.E. 592; Kirkland v. Calhoun, 248 S.W. 302; Keith v. Keith, 97 Mo. 223; Desesbats v. Berquier, 1 Binney, 336; In re Coppock's Estate, 234 P. 258, 39 A.L.R. 1152; Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113; Sec. 254, R.S. 1929; United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324; Ghio's Estate, 157 Cal. 552, affirmed 223 U.S. 317. (b) The ancillary probate of the Orth will in Missouri is not affected by any time limitation fixed by the Missouri statutes, as such limitation is repugnant to the existing Treaty between the United States and Germany. Treaty of Oct. 4, 1925, 44 Stat. Vol. III, p. 2132; United States Const., Art. VI, Sec. 2; Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416; Ware v. Hilton, 3 Dall. 199; Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U.S. 483; Asakura v. Seattle, 265 U.S. 332; United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324; Woerner on Administration, p. 28, sec. 19; In re Ghio's Estate, 157 Cal. 552, affirmed 223 U.S. 317. (c) The provisions of the Treaty should be liberally construed, and should be considered to confer every incidental power necessary to the effectuation of its evident intention. Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258; Jordan v. Tashiro, 278 U.S. 123; Tucker v. Alexandroff, 183 U.S. 424; McEvoy v. Wyman, 191 Mass. 276; In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453; Nielsen v. Johnson, 379 U.S. 47; Santovincenzo v. Egan, 284 U.S. 30; Hopkirk v. Bell, 3 Cranch, 454; Farris v. Burchard, 242 Mo. 1; Graham v. Graham, 297 Mo. 290; Woerner on Administration, pp. 701, 704, 773; McClure v. Baker, 216 S.W. 1018; Tampa Water Works Co. v. Tampa, 199 U.S. 241; Mayor of Baltimore v. Flack, 64 A. 708; Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Barnes, 51 N.W. 386, 2 N.D. 341; 59 C.J., sec. 309, p. 722; Weiss v. Wiener, 279 U.S. 333; Calh