Executors in the state of testator's domicil are not bound, under the full faith and cred it clause, by a decree of the court of another state against an administrator c. t. a., in a case submitted to arbitration before the tes tator's death ; Brown v. Fletcher's Estate, 210 U. S. 82, 28 Sup. Ct. 702, 52 L. Ed. 966.
Cceterorum. That which is granted as to the residue of an estate, which cannot be ad ministered under the limited power already granted ; 4 Hagg. Eccl. 382, 386; 4 M. & G. 398 ; 1 Curt. Eccl. 286.
It differs from administration de bonis non in this, that in cceterorum the full power granted is exercised and exhausted, while in the other the power is, for some cause, not fully exercised.
Cum testamento annero. That which is granted where no executor is named in the will, or where the one named dies, or is in competent or unwilling to act. Such an ad ministrator must follow the statute rules of distribution, except when otherwise directed by the will; Ex parte Brown, 2 Bradt (,N. Y.) 22; Farwell v. Jacobs, 4 Mass. 634; Stacy v. Thrasher, 6 How. (U. S.) 59, 12 L. Ed. 337. The residuary legatee is appointed such administrator rather than the next of kin; Estate of Donnelly, 2 Phil. (Pa.) 54; Thornton v. Winston, 4 Leigh (Va.) 152 ; 2 Add. 352.
De bonis non. That which is granted when the first administrator dies before having fully administered. The person so appointed has in general the powers of a common ad ministrator; Bacon, Abr. Executors, B, 1; Rolle, Abr. 907; Matthews v. Douthitt, 27 Ala. 273, 62 Am. Dec. 765 ; State v. Porter, 9 Ind. 342; Thomas. v. Stanley, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 411; Watson v. Jacobs, 29 Vt. 170; Johnson v. Bank, 11 Md. 412 ; Coffin v. Heath, 6 Metc. (Mass.) 78; Wiggin v. Swett, 6 Metc. (Mass.) 198, 39 Am. Dec. 716; Prusa v. Everett, 78 Neb. 250, 110 N. W. 568; Prusa v. Everett, 78 Neb. 251, 113 N. W. 571.
A residuary legatee has sufficient interest in an estate to request the appointment of an administrator d. b. n. to collect debts, wheth er it will make the estate solvent or not ; Mallory's Appeal from Probate, 62 Conn. 218, 25 Atl. 109.
De bonis non cum testament° annex°. That which is granted when an executor dies leaving a part of the estate unadminis tered. Comyns, Dig. Adm. B, 1; Ellmaker's Estate, 4 Watts (Pa.) 34, 38, 39. It cannot he based on a will made in a foreign country if invalid there because of defective execu tion; Coleman's Estate, 13 Pa. Co. Ct. 81.
Durante absentia. That which subsists during the absence of the executor and until he has proved the will. In England, by stat ute, such an administration is raised during the absence of the executor, and is not de termined by the executor's dying abroad; 4 Hagg. Eccl. 360; 3 Bos.,& P. 26; see Willing v. Perot, 5 Ramie (Pa.) 264.
Durante minori cetate. That which is granted when the executor is a minor. It continues until the minor attains his lawful age to act, which at common law is seven teen years ; 5 Coke 29. When an infant is sole executor, the statute 38 Geo. III. c. 87, s. 6 provides that probate shall not be grant ed to him until his full age of twenty-one years, and that adm. cum test. annex° shall be granted in the n;tean time to his guardian or other suitable person. A similar statute
provision exists in most of the United States. This administrator may., collect assets, pay debts, sell bona peritura, and perform such other acts as require immediate He may sue and be sued ; Bacon, Abr. Ex ecutor, B, 1; Cro. Eliz. 718; 2 Bla. Com. 503; 5 Coke 29 ; Taylor v. Barron, 35 N. H. 484, 493.
Where there are no creditors or heirs of age, the tutor of minor heirs has a right to take possession. of succession property and administer their interests in it ; Succession of Bourgeois, 43 La. Ann. 247, 9 South. 34.
Foreign administration. That which is ex ercised by virtue of authority properly con ferred by a foreign power.
The general rule in England and the Unit ed States is that letters granted in one ju risdiction, give no authority to sue or be sued in another jurisdiction, though they may be ground for new probate authority ; 5 Ves. 44; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 23; Sup., Ct. 277, 47 L. Ed. 439; Doe v.
Farland, 9 Cra. (U. S.) 151, 3 L. Ed. 687 ; Armstrong v. Lear, 12 Wheat. (U. S.) .169, 6 L. Ed. 589 ; Perkins v. Williams, 2 ,Root (Conn.) 462 ; Dangerfield's Ex'x v. Thurs ton's Heirs, 8. Mart. (N. S..) [La.] 232.; M'Cullough v. Young, 1 Binn. (Pa.) .63; Mat-; thews v. Douthitt, 27 Ala. 273, 02 Am. Dec. 765; Fisk v. Norvel, 9 Tex. 13, 58 Am. Dec. 128; State v. Price, 21 Mo. 434; Cocke v. Finley, 29 Miss. 127 ; Dickinson. v. M'Craw, 4 Rand. (Va.) 158; Allsup _v. Allsup's Heirs, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 283; Stearns v. Burnham, 5 Ureenl. (Me.) 261, 17 Am. Dec. 228; Tay lor v. Barron, 35 N. H. 484; Wood v. Gold, 4 McLean C. C. 577, Fed. Cas. No. 17,947 ; Vaughan v, .Northup, 15 Pet.. (U. S.) 1, 10 L. Ed. 639; Hilly. Tucker, 13 How. (U.S S.) 458, 14 L. Ed. 223 ; Black .v. Allen Co., 42 Fed. 618, 9 L. R. A.433; Farrington v. Trust Co., 9 N. Y. Supp. 433. Hence, when persons are domiciled and die in one country as A, and haie personal property in another as B, the authority must. be had in B, but exer cised according to the laws of A ; Story, Confl. Laws 23, 447; Leach v. Pillsbury, 15 N. H. 137 ; Spraddling v. Pipkin, 15 Mo. 118 ; Williams v. Williams, 5 Md. 467 ; Ex parte McComb, 4 Bradt (N. Y.) 151; King v. U. S., Ct. Cl. 529; Rutherford v. U. S., 27 Ct. Cl. 539; and see E)omicn., There. is no legal privity between admin istrators in different states ; nor between executors of a will in one state and adminis trators c. t. a. in another ; Wilson v. Ins. Co., 164 Fed. 817, 90 C. C. A. 593, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 553. The principil administrator is to act in the intestate's domicil, and the ancil lary is to collect claims and pay debts in the foreign jurisdiction and pay over the surplus to his principal ; Pond v. Makepeace, 2 Mete. (Mass.) 114; 3 Hagg. Eccl. 199; Jones v. Marable, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 116; Lawrence v. Kitteridge, 21 Conn. 577, 56 Am. Dec. 385 ; Stokely's Estate, 19 Pa. 476 ; Riley v. Riley, 3 Day (Conn.) 74, 3 Am. Dec. 260; The Boston, 1 Blatchf. & H. 309, Fed. Cas. No. 1,669 ; Kilpatrick v. Bush, 23 Miss. 199; 2 Curt. Eccl. 241; Carmichael v. Ray, 1 Rich. (S. C.) 116.