Page Vance v. Vance, 108 U. S. 514, 521, 2 Sup. Van Eyken v. Railroad Co. (D. C.) 117 945 Vastbinder, In re, 13 Am. Bankr. Rep. 148, 132 Fed. 718.. .742, 743 Tentress v. Smith, 10 Pet. 161, 9 L. Ed. 382 369 Village of Des Plaines v. Poyer, 123 Ill. 348, 14 N. E. 677, 5 Am. St. Rep. 524.. 214 Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 25 L. Ed. 667 211 Virtue v. Ioka Tribe, 5 Pa. Dist. R. 634... 426 Vrow Judith, 1 Rob. Adm. 150.... 172 Page 627 .90, 91 Weinger, Bergman & Co., In re (D. C.) 126 Weisgerber v. Clowney (C. C.) 131 Fed. Wertheim v. Railroad (C. C.) 15 Fed. 716.. 837 Western Electric Co. v. La Rue, 139 U. S. 973 462 398 135 Western Union Tel. Co. v. McGill, 6 C. C. A. 521, 57 Fed. 699, 21 L. R. A. 818. 869 Westinghouse v. Brake Co., 170 U. S. 561, 562, 18 Sup. Ct. 707, 718, 42 L. Ed. 1136 131 Westinghouse v. Gas Co. (C. C.) 43 Fed. 582 Westinghouse Electric Mfg. Co. v. Granite Co., 49 C. C. A. 151, 162, 110 Fed. 753, 764 Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Instrument Co., 133 Fed. 167.. 922 677 824 920 Walker Patented Pivoted Bin Co. v. Miller .66, 72, 78 Wheeler v. Insurance Co., 101 U. S. 442, 24 L. Ed. 1055... 431 Walla Walla v. Water Co., 172 U. S. 12, 212 299 500, 503, 510 Walsh v. People, 65 Ill. 64, 16 Am. Rep. 569 880 Walston v. Nevin. 128 U. S. 582, 9 Sup. Ct. 192, 32 L. Ed. 544.. 238 Ward v. Cockran, 150 U. S. 597, 14 Sup. Ct. 230, 37 L. Ed. 1195.. 41 Wardell v. Williams, 62 Mich. 50, 28 N. W. 796, 4 Am. St. Rep. 814. 704 Warner v. Durant, 76 Ñ. Y. 136. 612 CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND THE CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS. MOORE v. FIDELITY TRUST CO. et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. June 1, 1905.) No. 35. FEDERAL COURTS-ACTION AGAINST EXECUTORS-ACCOUNTING JURISDICTION. Where the surviving partner of a firm was one of the executors of the estate of his deceased partner, the settlement of which was pending in the probate court of the state, which had full jurisdiction in equity to compel an accounting between the executors and by the surviving partner of his deceased partner's interest in the firm, a bill by a distributee under the will to compel an accounting by such surviving partner and a payment of the amount found due to the executors for distribution was a suit looking to the mere administration of the estate, and was not, therefore, maintainable in the federal courts. [Ed. Note. For cases in point, see vol. 13, Cent. Dig. Courts, §§ 796, 1410; vol. 22, Cent. Dig. Executors and Administrators, § 2004.] Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. For opinion below, see 134 Fed. 489. John M. Gardner and V. G. Robinson, for appellant. H. Gordon McCouch, for appellees. Before ACHESON, DALLAS, and GRAY, Circuit Judges. DALLAS, Circuit Judge. The bill of complaint, which the court below dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, was brought by Albert H. Moore, a citizen of New York, who is a son of Andrew M. Moore, deceased, and a distributee under his will, against the three executors named therein, citizens of Pennsylvania, to whom letters testamentary had been duly granted. One of these executors, Joseph F. Sinnott, was in partnership with Andrew M. Moore down to the time of his death, in the wholesale liquor business. The bill alleged that among the partnership assets of this firm of Moore & Sinnott were certain trade-marks, also the firm name of Moore & Sinnott, also the good will of said business, also the right of said Moore & Sinnott to sell liquors under the firm name and style of *For dissenting opinion, see 138 Fed. 1008. 138 F.-1 |
