Legal Opinion

Grand Trunk Western Railroad v. Kaplansky

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 7, 1935No. Docket Nos. 36, 37, Calendar Nos. 37,914, 37,915PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBtjtzel, J.

The order dismissing the' bill of complaint should be affirmed. There is much'to be said against''the appointment of .nonresidents as well as residents who are citizens of foreign nations, as administrators of estates. It is quite obvious that the appointment of such persons as a rule is sought solely for the purpose of bringing litigation on behalf of the estate within the jurisdiction of the Federal court. While the law does not expressly forbid the appointment of a nonresident as an administrator, the probate court may nevertheless order the removal of an administrator for nonresidence. 3…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Mecom v. Fitzsimmons Drilling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. Continental Insurance v. RhoadsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  3. Amory v. AmorySupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  4. Blake v. McKimSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  5. Memphis St. Ry. Co. v. BoboCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1916

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In Re Humphrey EstateMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985
  2. Humphrey v. Detroit Bank & Trust Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1985
  3. in Re Douglas W Baltrip EstateMichigan Court of Appeals · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API