EXECUTORSAND ADMINISTRATORS § 16

circumstances.' While the presumption of death arising

from a person's absence, who is unheard
16 Jurisdietional requisites F a r t from for a considerable length o f time,4
of death may present a prima facie case sufficient
Research References
to warrant a grant of administration on
West's Key Number Digest, Executors and his or her estate,5 the presumption does
Administrators c:7n1 not take the case out of the operation of
the general rule on the subject, and i f it is
The death of the person on whose
estate administration is sought is a made to appear that the person is in fact
jurisdictional requisite. W h i l e t h e alive at the time such administration has
presumption o f death arising from been granted, the administration is abso-
• a b s e n c e may present a p r i m a facie lutely void.'
case sufficient to warrant a grant of
administration, i f it subsequently de- Although t h e r e i s a u t h o r i t y t o t h e
velops t h a t such person i s i n f a c t contrary,' i t has been held that payment
alive, the administration is void. to an administrator of an absentee who is
It is absolutely essential to jurisdiction not in fact dead is no defense against the
of the administration of an estate that the absentee o r h i s o r h e r l e g a l
person on whose estate such administra- representative,' n o r are costs a n d dis-
tion is granted is dead.' A living person bursements incurred by such administra-
has no estate subject to probate, and there tor a legal charge against the absentee or
is no vested right o f inheritance i n the his or her property.' Where the adminis-
estate of a living person.' Any administra- trator has paid debts o f the absentee,
tion on the estate o f a living person is however, he or she is subrogated to the
void.' rights of the creditors whom he or she has

As to the location of assets as giving jurisdic- App. 839, 160 S.E. 653 (1931).
tion to grant administration, see § 19. Kan.—Withers v. Root, 146 Kan. 822, 73
5Utah—In re Tasanen's Estate, 25 Utah 396, P.2c1 1113 (1937).
71 P. 984 (1903). Mont.—Williams v. Hefner, 89 Mont. 361,
[Section 16] 297 P. 492 (1931).
As to the administration on estates of absen-
1Kan.—Withers v. Root, 146 Kan. 822, 73 tees as absentees, see C.J.S., Absentees §§ 13 to 15.
1).2d 1113 (1937).
Tex.—Pollock v. Wuntch, 116 S.W.2d 796 6Ga.—National Surety Co. v. Wages, 48 Ga.
(Tex. Civ. App. Texarkana 1938). App. 720, 173 S.E. 451 (1934), aff'd, 180 Ga. 574,
179 S.E. 761 (1935).
Wash.—State ex rel. Brisbin v. Frater, 1
Wash. 2d 13, 95 P.2d 27 (1939). Kan.—Withers v. Root, 146 Kan. 822, 73
P.2d 1113 (1937).
Production of body not required
Mont.—Williams v. Hefner, 89 Mont. 361,
U.S.—Philpott v. Vesta Coal Co., 21 F. Supp. 297 P. 492 (1931).
37 (W.D. Pa. 1937).
Neb.—Ericsson v. Streitz, 132 Neb. 692, 273
20kla.—Randall v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., N.W. 17 (1937).
2006 OK 65, 145 13.3d 1048 (Okla. 2006). Tex.—Pollock v. Wuntch, 116 S.W.2d 796
3Ga.—Bank of Jonesboro v. Wilson, 43 Ga. (Tex. Civ. App. Texarkana 1938).
App. 839, 160 S.E. 653 (1931). N.J.—Hamilton v. Orange Say. Bank, 99
Kan.—Withers v. Root, 146 Kan. 822, 73 N.J.L. 503, 124 A. 62 (N.J. Ct. Err. & App. 1924).
121.2d 1113 (1937).
5Ga.—Bank of Jonesboro v. Wilson, 43 Ga.
N.Y.—In re Clemens' Estate, 174 Misc. 1052, App. 839, 160 S.E. 653 (1931).
22 N.Y.S.2d 168 (Sur. Ct. 1940).
N.Y.—Marks v. Emigrant Industrial Say.
Okla.—Winter v. Mein-Schultz, 1938 O K 47, Bank, 122 A.D. 661, 107 N.Y.S. 491 (1st Dep't
182 Okla. 231, 76 13.2d 1051 (1938). 1907).
4C.J.S., Death §§ 8 to 14.
9N.D.--Clapp v. Houg, 12 N.D. 600, 98 N.W.
5Ga.—Bank of Jonesboro v. Wilson, 43 Ga. 710 (1904).
'§ CORPUSJURISSECUNDUM

paid." render administration on the estate of a

On the other hand, i t has been consid- decedent proper the decedent must have
ered that the invalidity of the administra- died possessed of some assets or property.'
tion does not relate back, but that it is in- This cannot be held to be established be-
valid o n l y f r o m t h e t i m e w h e n t h e yond dispute where administration is
presumption of death is rebutted." More- sought in the domicile of the decedent, al-
over, the objection to administration o f though there i s no doubt t h a t assets
the estate of one presumed to be dead is within the jurisdiction are ordinarily nec-
obviated b y a statute authorizing the essary when administration is sought
courts t o provide for administration o f elsewhere than in the domicile.'
such an estate under reasonable regula- Where property relied on to establish
tions and adequate protection of the prop- jurisdiction has come into an absentee's
erty rights o f the absentee i f he o r she beneficial ownership during his o r her
should turn out to be alive.' absence, jurisdiction must fail unless the
applicant establishes the absentee's acqui-
§ 17 Jurisdictional requisites— sition of the beneficial ownership prior to
Existence of assets his or her death.'
Research References The existence of a cause o f action for
West's K e y N u m b e r Digest, Executors a n d wrongful death is usually regarded as a
Administrators C=)11 sufficient basis for a grant of administra-
To render administration on a dece-
tion in the jurisdiction where such cause
dent's estate proper, assets within the
of action has arisen,' or where i t may be
jurisdiction are ordinarily necessary, enforced,' even though the decedent was
at l e a s t w h e r e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i s a nonresident' and has left no other as-
sought elsewhere than in the domicile sets i n the jurisdiction.' This view has
of the decedent. been maintained notwithstanding a con-
I t has been stated t h a t i n order t o tention that the cause of action has not

'Ark.—Beam v. Copeland, 54 Ark. 70, 14 S.W. 4Mich.—In re Hague Estate, 237 Mich. App.
1094 (1890). 295, 602 N.W.2d 622 (1999).
"Ga.—Sligh v. Whitley, 41 Ga. App. 428, 153 N.Y.—In re Wenkhous' Estate, 158 Misc.
S.E. 237 (1930). 663, 286 N.Y.S. 518 (Sur. Ct. 1936).
Ill.—Donovan v. Major, 253 Iii. 179, 97 N.E. Wash.—Lund v. City of Seattle, 163 Wash.
231 (1911). 254, 1 P.2d 301 (1931).
12I11.--Eddy v. Eddy, 302 Iii. 446, 134 N.E. 801 As to an action for wrongful death as an as-
(1922). set of the estate, see § 179.
As to an action for wrongful death by the
[Section 17] personal representative, see C.J.S., Death § 111.
1U.S.—Daniels v. USS Agri-Chemicals, a Div. 5Minn.—Peterson V. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co.,
of U.S. Diversified Group, 965 F.2d 376 (7th Cir. 187 Minn. 228, 244 N.W. 823 (1932).
1992). Vt.—Berry v. Rutland R. Co., 103 Vt. 388,
Minn.—Finnerty v. Gerlach, 176 Minn. 433, 154 A. 671 (1931).
223 N.W. 683 (1929).
6Mass.—McCarron v. New York Cent. R. Co.,
N.H.—Robinson v. Dana's Estate, 87 N.H. 239 Mass. 64, 131 N.E. 478 (1921).
114, 174 A. 772, 94 A.L.R. 1437 (1934).
N.Y.—Van Dusen v. Sturm, 257 A.D. 914, 12
Probate code requires res f o r probate N.Y.S.2d 133 (4th Dep't 1939).
court jurisdiction Tex.—Lancaster & Wallace v. Sexton, 245
Mo.—In re Estate of Macormic, 244 S.W.3d 254 S.W. 958 (Tex. Civ. App. Texarkana 1922), writ
(Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 2008). refused, (Feb. 14, 1923).
2§ 18. 7Minn.—State v. Probate Court In and For
3N.Y.—In re Katz's Estate, 135 Misc. 861, 239 Hennepin C o u n t y, 149 M i n n . 464, 1 8 4 1\1:W- 43
N.Y.S. 722 (Sur. Ct. 1930). (1921).

714