149; nor to sue for intestate lands where they were made by statute assets in the hands of a domestic administrator; Fairchild v. Hagel, 54 Ark. 61, 14 S. W. 1102 ; but to sue for the grant of local administration ; Gib son v. Ponder, 40 Ark. 195 ; where no suit is necessary a foreign executor or administra tor has been permitted to remove personal property and carry it away for the purpose of administration ; Petersen v. Bank, 32 N. Y. 21, 88 Am. Dec. 298 ; Putnam v. Pitney, 45 Minn. 242, 47 N. W. 790, 11 L. R. A. 41; Mc Namara v. McNamara, 62 Ga. 200 ; Selleck v. Rusco, 46 Conn. 370 ; and in the absence of local administration payment to a foreign representative is recognized ; Wilkins v. El lett, 108 U. S. 256, 2 Sup. Ct. 641, 27 L. Ed. 718 ; Wyman v. Halstead, 109 U. S. 656, 3 Sup. Ct. 417, 27 L. Ed. 1068; Parsons v. Ly man, 20 N. Y. 103.
The latter may assign choses in action be longing to the estate, and the assignee may sue thereon in his own name in another state, unless prevented by its laws respecting assign ments from so doing ; Wilkins v. Ellett, 108 U. S. 256, 2 Sup. Ct. 641, 27 L. Ed. 718 ; Camp bell v. Brown, 64 Ia. 425, 20 N. W. 745, 52 Am. Rep. 446 ; Solinsky v. Bank, 82 Tex. 244, 17 S. W. 1050 ; Petersen v. Bank, 32 N. Y. 21, 88 Am. Dec. 298 ; he may also sue in another state on a judgment there recovered ; Tal mage v. Chapel, 16 Mass. 71; Biddle v. Wil kins, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 686, 7 L. Ed. 315 ; Trecoth ick v. Austin, 4 Mas. 16, Fed. Cas. No. 14,164 ; Barton v. Higgins, 41 Md. 539; or he may sue in his individual capacity in another state, on a judgment recovered by hint in his official capacity in his own state, Tittman v. Thornton, 107 Mo. 500, 17 S. W. 979, 16 L. R. A. 410 ; Arizona Cattle Co. v. Huber, 4 Ariz. 69, 33 Pac. 555 ; and upon a contract made with himself as such a foreign executor or administrator may sue ; Barrett v. Barrett, 8 'Green]. (Me.) 346; Du Val v. Marshall, 30 Ark. 230 ; Sto. Confi. L. §§ 513-516. The term foreign as applied to executors and ad ministrators refers to the jurisdiction from which their authority is derived and not to residence ; Fugate v. Moore, 86 Va. 1045, 11 S. E. 1063, 19 Am. St. Rep. 926 ; Hopper v. Hopper, 125 N. Y. 400, 26 N. E. 457, 12 L. R. A. 237. The estate of a deceased person is substantially one estate, in which those en titled to the residue are interested as a whole, even though situated in various jurisdictions, and although each distinct part of it must be settled in the jurisdiction by which letters were granted whether for the purpose of an cillary or principal administration ; Schoul. Ex. & Ad. § 174 ; ordinarily it is the practice to recognize the person appointed executor or administrator at the domicil of the deceased as the person to whom ancillary letters will be granted; In re Blancan, 4 Redf., (N. Y.)
151; Whart. Conti. L. § 608 ; but there is no privity between persons appointed in differ ent jurisdictions whether they be different or the same, and the executor or administrator in one state is not concluded in a subsequent suit by the same plaintiff in another state against a person having administration on the estate of the deceased ; Johnson v. Pow ers, 139 U. S. 156, 11 Sup. Ct. 525, 35 L. Ed. 112; Braithwaite v. Harvey, 14 Mont. 208, 36 Pac. 38, 27 L. R. A. 101, 43 Am. St. Rep. 625 ; Jones v. Jones, 39 S. C. 247, 17 S. E. 587, 802. But a different rule has been applied where different executors are appointed by the will in different states, and they are held to be in privity with each other, and a judgment against those in one state is evidence against those in another ; Hill v. Tucker, 13 How. (U. S.) 458, 14 L. Ed. 223 ; Goodall v. Tucker, 13 How. (U. S.) 469, 14 L. Ed. 227.
When any surplus remains in the hands of a foreign. or ancillary appointee after the dis charge of all debts in that jurisdiction, it is usually, as a matter of comity, ordered to be paid over to the domiciliary appointee ; Wright v. Phillips, 56 Ala. 69; 50 L. J. Ch. 740; and in his hands becomes applicable to debts, legacies, and expenses ; SchCrul. Ex. & Ad. § 174. It is the policy of the law with respect to these matters to encourage the spirit of comity in subordination to the rights of local creditors who are considered to be entitled to the benefit of assets within their own jurisdiction, rather than to be driven to the assertion of their claims in a foreign state or country ; id.; but see TAX Foul.
As a general rule it is the duty of the prin cipal personal representative to collect and make available to the estate all such assets as are available to him consistently with for eign law ; 4 M. & W. 171; 1 Cr. & J. 157 ; even to the extent of seeing that foreign letters are taken out for the collection of foreign as sets ; or of collecting and realizing upon property and debts so far as it may be done by him, without resort to a foreign jurisdic tion ; Trecothick v. Austin, 4 Mas. 33, Fed. Cas. No. 14,164; In re Butler, 38 N. Y. 397 ; Merrill v. Ins. Co., 103 Mass. 245, 4 Am, Rep. 548 ; but the domestic representative is not to be held in this respect to too onerous a responsibility with respect to foreign prop erty which he cannot realize by virtue of his appointment. See Sto. Conti. L. § 514 a; Schou]. Ex. & Ad. § 175. It is the policy of the courts to sustain, if possible, even irreg ular acts of executors or administrators done in good faith and without detriment of the estate ; Duffy v. McHale (R. I.) 85 Atl. 36.