339 U.S. 306, 313-314 (1950)
In January 1946, Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company established a common trust fund in accordance with New York Banking Law § 100-c. In March 1947, the bank petitioned the Surrogate's Court for settlement of its first account as common trustee. During the accounting period a total of 113 trusts, approximately half inter vivos and half testamentary, participated in the common trust fund, the gross capital of which was nearly three million dollars. The record does not show the number or residence of the beneficiaries, but they were many and it is clear that some of them were not residents of the State of New York.1
The only notice given beneficiaries of this specific application was by publication in a local newspaper in strict compliance with the minimum requirements of N.Y. Banking Law § 100-c (12). The notice set forth merely the name and address of the trust company, the name and the date of establishment of the common trust fund, and a list of all participating estates, trusts or funds.2 At the time the first investment in the common fund was made on behalf of each participating estate, however, the trust company, pursuant to the requirements of § 100-c (9), had notified by mail each person of full age and sound mind whose name and address were then known to it and who was entitled to share in the income therefrom or who would be entitled to share in the principal if the event upon which such estate, trust or fund will become distributable should have occurred at the time of sending such notice.3
Upon the filing of the petition for the settlement of accounts, appellant was, by order of the court pursuant to § 100-c (12), appointed special guardian and attorney for all persons known or unknown not otherwise appearing who had or might thereafter have any interest in the income of the common trust fund, and appellee Vaughan was appointed to represent those similarly interested in the principal. There were no other appearances on behalf of any one interested in either interest or principal.4 Appellant appeared specially, objecting that notice and the statutory provisions for notice to beneficiaries were inadequate to afford due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore that the court was without jurisdiction to render a final and binding decree. Appellant's objections were entertained and overruled, the Surrogate holding that the notice required and given was sufficient.5
A final decree accepting the accounts has been entered, affirmed by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, and by the Court of Appeals of the State of New York. The effect of this decree, as held below, is to settle all questions respecting the management of the common fund. The decree is made binding and conclusive as to any matter set forth in the account upon everyone having any interest in the common fund or in any participating estate, trust or fund.6
Whether the Surrogate's Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the interests of nonresident beneficiaries in a proceeding to settle the accounts of a common trust fund?7
The interest of each state in providing means to close trusts that exist by the grace of its laws and are administered under the supervision of its courts is so insistent and rooted in custom.8 This establishes beyond doubt the right of its courts to determine the interests of all claimants, resident or nonresident, provided its procedure accords full opportunity to appear and be heard.9
Yes. The common trust fund was established under New York Banking Law and the Surrogate's Court is supervising its administration.10 Some beneficiaries are nonresidents.11 The state's interest in settling the accounts of such funds allows jurisdiction over all claimants as long as due process notice is provided.12
The Surrogate's Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the interests of nonresident beneficiaries.13
Whether notice by publication in a newspaper as required by N.Y. Banking Law § 100-c (12) satisfies due process for beneficiaries whose names and addresses are known to the trustee?14
An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. Where the names and postoffice addresses of those affected by a proceeding are at hand, the reasons disappear for resort to means less likely than the mails to apprise them of its pendency.15
No. The trustee has on its books the names and addresses of the income beneficiaries represented by appellant. The only notice given was by publication, which is not reasonably calculated to reach those who could easily be informed by mail. The earlier mailed notice at the time of investment does not suffice for the accounting proceeding.16
Notice by publication does not satisfy due process for beneficiaries whose names and addresses are known to the trustee.17
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Burton dissented from the holding that additional notice was constitutionally required.18 He observed that these common trusts are available only when the instruments creating the participating trusts permit participation in the common fund.19 In his view, whether or not further notice to beneficiaries should supplement the notice and representation here provided is properly within the discretion of the State.20
The Federal Constitution therefore does not require supplemental notice in this setting.21 His position emphasizes state autonomy over the details of trust administration procedures once basic representation is in place.22
Whether notice by publication satisfies due process for beneficiaries whose interests or whereabouts are unknown or cannot reasonably be ascertained?23
It has been recognized that, in the case of persons missing or unknown, employment of an indirect and even a probably futile means of notification is all that the situation permits and creates no constitutional bar to a final decree foreclosing their rights.24
Yes. Beneficiaries whose interests or whereabouts could not with due diligence be ascertained fall into the category where publication is sufficient. The practical difficulties and costs of investigations into the status of great numbers of beneficiaries make more specific notice impracticable under the circumstances of this common trust fund accounting.25
Notice by publication satisfies due process for beneficiaries whose interests or whereabouts are unknown or cannot reasonably be ascertained.