Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
McCulloch, administrator, &c., v. Young, 1803 — 4 U.S. 253 · caselaw · US
General
McCulloch, administrator, &c., v. Young
4 U.S. 2534 Dall. 253·Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·1803·PA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
*McCulloch, administrator, &c., v. Young.
Foreign executors.
An action can be maintained in the courts of Pennsylvania, under the authority of letters of administration granted in another state.
This was an action on the case, brought against the defendant, by John McCulloch, as administrator of Robert Parland, under letters of administration granted by the orphans’ court, and tested by “ the register of wills for Prince George county,” in the state of Maryland, on the 8th of October 1799, addressed to John McCulloch of “Alexandria, in the state of Virginia.”
The only controverted question in the cause was submitted to the court, all the judges being present: to wit, whether an action could be maintained in the courts of Pennsylvania under the authority of letters of administration granted in another state ?
And after argument, by M. Levy, for the plaintiff, and by Hopkinson, for the defendant (in the course of which 1 Dall. 456; 1 Dall. Laws, 30, were cited):
s. c. 1 Binn. 63; where the case is more fully reported.
This case has long ceased to be 1aw in Pennsylvania: Thompson, C. J., in Sayre v. Helme. 61 Penn St. 300.
[MAJORITY — The Court,]
The Court,
adverting to the numerous instances, both since and before the revolution, in which such suits were maintained, unanimously pronounced—
Judgment for the plaintiff.