Payment to an ancillary administrator is no bar to a suit by the administrator of the domicile ; Maas v. Bank, 36 Misc. 154, 72 N. Y. Supp. 1068 ; nor is it a defence to a prior action by the domiciliary administra tor in another state, of which the defendant had knowledge before payment ; Steele v. Ins. Co., 160 N. Y. 703, 57 N. E. 1125. For other cases see 15 Harv. L. Rev. 412. But in Quebec a foreign administrator is recog nized; 12 Harv. L. Rev: 287; as well as foreign guardians and receivers, and this rule is said to be satisfactory in operation; id., citing Lafleur, Confi. L.
An administrator appointed in Michigan cannot sue a resident of New York in the United States circuit court in that state when he had not taken out letters of admin isttation in New York ; Johnson v. Polvers, 139 U. S. 156, 11 Sup. Ct. 525, 35 L. Ed. 112.
But some courts hold that the probate of a will in a foreign state, if duly authenti cated, dispenses with the necessity of taking Out new letters in their state ; Lancaster v. McBryde, 27 N. C. 421 ; Gray v. Patton, 2 B. Monr. (Ky.) 12; Rice v. Jones, 4 Call (Va.) 89; Vaughan v. Northup, 15 Pet. (U. S.) 1, 10 L. Ed. 639; Ives v. Allyn, 12 Vt. 589 ; Hayes v. Pratt, 147 U. S. 557, 13 Sup. Ct. 503, 37 L. Ed. 279.
Where a deceased plaintiff was domiciled in another state, an executor appointed 'in the domicil will be preferred to a temporary administrator appointed in the state of the forum, as' the new party ; Norman v. Goode, 113 Ga. 121, 38 S. E. 317.
It has been held that possession of prop erty may be taken in a foreign state, but a suit cannot be brought without taking out letters in that state ; Watt's Efrs v. Shep pard, 2 Ala. 429 ; Trotter v. White, 10 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 607; Suarez v. City of New York, 2 Sandi. Ch. (N. Y.) 178. In Arizona suit may be brought upon a foreign judgment without taking out new letters of adminis tration ; Arizona Cattle Co. v. Huber, 4 Ariz. 69, 33 Pac. 555. See CONFLICT OF laws.
For the purpose of administration, the situs of a debt is the domicil of the debtor and not the place where the evidence of the debt is located; Michigan Trust Co. v. Pro basco, 29. Ind. App. 109, 63 N. E. 255 ; Mur phy v. Crouse, 135 Cal. 14, 66 Pac. 971, 87 Am. St. Rep. 90, where it was said that in this respect certificates of stock do not differ from other chases in action. The situs, as property, of corporate stock owned by a non resident decedent is within the county where the corporate property is or where the cor poration has its principal place of business ; In re. Arnold, 114 App. Div. 244, 99 N. Y. Supp. 740.
Pendente lite. That which is granted pending the controversy respecting an al leged will or the right of appointment. An
officer of the court is appointed to take care of the estate only till the suit terminates ; 2 P. Will. 589; 1 Hagg. Eccl. 313 ; Bergin v. McFarland, 26 N. H. 533; Fisk v. Norvel, 9 Tex. 13, 58 Am. Dec. 128 ; Barksdale v. Cobb; 16 Ga. 13 ; Cole v. Wooden, 18 N. J. L. 15. He may maintain suits, but cannot distribute the assets ; 1 Ball & B. 192 ; Cain v. Warford, 7 Md. 282; Appeal of Patton, 31 465; Rogers v. Dively, 51 Mo. 193.
Public. That which the public adminis trator performs. This is in many of the states by statute in those cases where per sons die intestate, without leaving any who are entitled to apply for letters of adminis tration ; Ferrie v. Public Administrator, 3 Bradf. (N. Y.) 151; Public Adm'rs v. Bur dell, 4 id. 252.
In many states there is provision of law for the• appointment of a public administra tor whose duty it is to administer upon the estate of any person found dead within his jurisdiction. Such officer is competent to administer on the estate within his county of any decedent irrespective of the place of his death ; In re Richardson's Estate, 120 Cal. 844, 52 Pac. 832 ; and such administra tor has no authority to refuse to enter upon or to continue the administration of an es tate, which by law he should administer. He cannot retain the office and choose for himself 'which of its duties he will perform; State v. Kennedy, 73 Mo. App. 384.
The authority of a public administrator to take charge of an estate cannot be col laterally questioned; Dunn v. German-Amer ican Bank, 109 Mo. 90, 18 S. W. 1139 ; Weir v. Monahan, 67 Miss. 434, 7 South. 291.
Speoial. That which is limited either in time or in power. Such administration does not come under the statutes of 31 Edw. III. c. 11, and 21 Hen. VIII. c. 5, on which the modern English and American laws are founded. A judgment against a special ad ministrator binds the estate ; 1 Sneed 430; although there is no property but merely a right of action, and if there is delay in granting the administration, a special ad ministrator might be appointed where im mediate settlement could be made ; Grece v. Helm, 91 Mich. 450, 51 N. W. 1106. In the United States, administration is a subject charged upon courts of civil jurisdiction. A multiplicity of statutes defines the powers of such courts in the various states. The public officer authorized to delegate the trust is called surrogate, judge of probate, register of wills, etc. In some states, these courts are of special jurisdiction, while in others the power is vested in county courts.