Græme et al., administrators, v. Harris

Græme et al., administrators, v. Harris. Foreign letters of administration. Letters of administration, granted by the archbishop of York, in England, are not a sufficient authority to maintain an action in this state. This cause came before the court on a case stated, which was, in substance, as follows : — The intestate, John Grseme, in his lifetime, to wit, in December term, 1772, obtained a judgment against the defend am. in a plea of debt, in the county court of common pleas of Philadelphia. He after-wards died, being resident, at the time of his death, in Great Britain, of which kingdom he was a subject. Upon his decease, the plaintiffs obtained letters of administration from the archbishop of York, in the said kingdom, which bore date the 25th of June 1784 ; but to this action, winch was a scire facias to revive the above-mentioned judgment, the defendant pleaded that the plaintiffs never were administrators ; issue was thereupon joined ; and this question submitted to the opinion of the court, whether under the authority of the letters of administration granted by the archbishop of York, the plaintiffs could maintain the present action ? The point was argued, on the 26th of September, by JRawle, for the plaintiffs, and Sergeant and Swift, for the defendant. Rawle relied on the act of assembly, which declares, that letters of ad%AKh'i ministration granted out of the province were sufficient for the *pur-1 pose of bringing actions (1 Sm. L. 33). He urged, that this law, as well as other laws of the province, was recognised and confirmed by the act of the 28th of January 1 777 ; that such letters of administration were a competent authority by the law of nations (Godb. 33, 47); and that it had been determined in a sister state, that letters of administration granted in New York, were sufficient to maintain actions in Connecticut. Kirby 270. Sergeant and Swift contended, that the necessary operation of the revolution, had altered the law declared in the act of assembly, and the words “ out of the province,” were evidently meant of places within the British dominions. They urged, that this was an attempt to give more force to the letters of administration, than they would be entitled to even in the British dominions; for, if there were bona notabilia in England, and in Ireland, letters of administration must be taken out in both kingdoms (2 Bac. Abr. 399; 11 Vin. 59, pl. 6; Id. 74, pl. 1); or, even if there were bona notabilia in two different provinces, as Canterbury and York, letters of administration must be granted in each. Palm. 163. The arguments ab inconvenienti, are likewise in favor of the defendant : for if this authority is good, the creditors of the intestate must pursue the administrators in England, or any foreign country, where the law differs with respect to the priority of debts. Besides, the security given by administrators, is only with relation to the apparent value of the personal estate where administration is granted. See 2 State Laws, 41; Art. of Confed., art. iv.; Const. Penn. § 34. [MAJORITY] The Court, having considered the case and arguments, were unanimously of opinion, that the letters of administration, granted by the archbishop of York, were not a sufficient authority to maintain an action in this commonwealth ; and gave Judgment for the defendant, In McCullough v. Young, 1 Binn. 63 (also reported in 4 Dall. 293), it was said by the court, that the act of 1705 “has uniformly been considered not to extend further than to the provinces in this country at the time the act was passed, and Graeme v. Harris turned upon that ground. At the same time, it has been as uniformly understood, both before and since the revolution, that letters of administration granted in a sister state, are a sufficient authority to maintain an action here; and such has been the practice without regard to the particular intestate laws of the state where they have been granted.” This practice of recognising the authority of letters of administration granted m another state, is believed to be peculiar to Pennsylvania. At least, so far as the reports furnish information, a similar degree of faith and credit is not given to such records in any other state. The inconveniences of the practice are obvious and frequently felt. In the argument of McCullough v. Young, Judge Hopicinson (then at the bar) suggested, that, upon the principle of recognising administration granted in another state, the personal property of an intestate, in this commonwealth, and which is the proper fund for payment of his debts here, might bo taken away and applied in direct contravention of our own rules ; and he instanced the case of the adjoining state of Delaware; where, at the time of the argument, and until a recent period, the law directed that creditors residing within the state should be first satisfied. The court seemed to admit that the practice of acknowledging the authority of foreign letters was productive of inconvenience, but they added, that -the remedy lay with the legislature. Since that decision (1808), the inconveniences have certainly not been diminished by the increased numbei of states, and this consideration, as well as a due regard to the dignity of the state, seems plainly to require legislative interposition. Be-affirmed in Alfonso’s Executors’ Appeal, 70 Penn. St. 347, where it was determined, that the executors of a decedent, whose domicil was in Cuba, had no authority, under letters testamentary granted in Cuba, to transfer stocks in Pennsylvania. The case of McCullough v. Young was overruled in Sayre v. Helme, 61 Penn. St. 299. Thompson v. McClelland, 29 Penn. St. 475. But the holder of an assigned claim must show th at it was assigned to him, before suit brought. Speers v. Sterrett, Id. 192. And see Russell v. Spear, 4 W. N. C. 476; Kessler v. Angle, 3 Id 23.