## Facts

- A Michigan probate court appointed Edward P. Ferry executor of his father’s estate; he qualified and administered the estate, later moving to Utah.
- After Ferry became incompetent, a Utah court placed him under guardianship of his sons.
- Michigan residuary beneficiaries petitioned the Michigan probate court to remove Ferry, compel an accounting, and appoint Michigan Trust Company as administrator de bonis non with the will annexed.
- Ferry and his Utah guardians received notice by publication and personal service in Utah; the Utah guardians appeared in the Michigan proceeding, and the Michigan court appointed a guardian ad litem for Ferry.
- The Michigan probate court removed Ferry and entered a decree finding him indebted to the father’s estate, ordering payment to Michigan Trust Company within a specified time.
- In a related proceeding concerning Ferry’s mother’s estate, the Michigan probate court entered a separate money decree ordering Ferry to pay a stated amount to Michigan Trust Company.
- Michigan Trust Company filed two actions in federal court in Utah to enforce the Michigan probate decrees against Ferry and his Utah-located property.
- The Utah federal court sustained demurrers and dismissed; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether full faith and credit required enforcement in Utah of Michigan probate decrees entered against an executor who was served and represented, but who resided outside Michigan when the decrees were entered.
2. Whether a Michigan probate court, after acquiring personal jurisdiction over an executor, could order a full accounting and enter personal money decrees for amounts found due, including for estate property not physically located in Michigan.
3. Whether the executor’s later incompetency defeated continuing jurisdiction or made enforcement of the decrees a deprivation of property without due process.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and held the Michigan probate decrees enforceable in Utah.
- Because Michigan had valid personal jurisdiction over Ferry in the probate proceeding, Michigan could bind him by later orders in the same administration.
- The Michigan probate court had authority to require a removed executor to account and to enter a personal decree charging him with property received and waste.
- Ferry’s later incompetency did not destroy jurisdiction; given guardianship participation, appointment of a guardian ad litem, and representation by counsel, due process was satisfied.
- A rendering court’s limited ability to execute on out-of-state property did not affect the validity of its personal decrees; other states were required to recognize them.

## Legal Principles

- When a judicial proceeding begins with personal jurisdiction over a party, the state may bind that party by subsequent orders in the same cause, and sister states must give those orders full faith and credit.
- A state may structure estate administration as a single continuing proceeding in which a fiduciary who accepts appointment remains subject to the probate court’s authority until the estate is closed.
- Under Michigan law as applied, a removed executor must account to the successor fiduciary for all estate property that came into his hands, and the probate court may enter a personal money decree for amounts found due in a properly noticed proceeding.
- Subsequent incompetency of a party does not negate jurisdiction previously acquired; due process is satisfied where the incompetent is represented (including by a guardian ad litem) and afforded an opportunity to be heard.
- Lack of practical enforcement power by the rendering court over out-of-state assets does not undermine the judgment’s validity or its entitlement to full faith and credit.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court required Utah to recognize and enforce Michigan probate money decrees against a removed executor because Michigan had obtained personal jurisdiction and afforded representation and process, and that jurisdiction continued despite the executor’s later incompetency and the location of assets outside Michigan.


Michigan Tr. Co. v. Ferry, 228 U.S. 346 (1913)