There is some difference of opinion as to whether a voluntary surrender of assets to the domiciliary representative protects the debtor against claims made by virtue of an administration within his own jurisdiction. The United States supreme court, supported by the current of American authority, main tains that, as between the states such pay ment or delivery of assets is sufficient to dis charge the local debtor in the absence of lo cal administration ; U. S. v. Cox, 18 How. (U. S.) 104, 15 L. Ed. 299 ; Wilkins v. Ellett, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 740, 19 L. Ed. 586 ; Wilkins v. Ellett, 108 U. S. 256, 2 Sup. Ct. 641, 27 L. Ed. 718 ; Hatchett v. Berney, 65 Ala. 39 ; Ramsay v. Ramsay, 97 Ill. App. 270 ; In re Williams' Estate, 130 Ia. 553, 107 N. W. 608 ; Maas v. Bank, 176 N. Y. 377, 68 N. E. 658, 98 Am. St. Rep. 689; Dexter v. Berge, 76 Minn. 216, 78 N. W. 1111; Gardiner v. Thorndike, 183 Mass. 82, 66 N. E. 633 ; Maas v. Bank, 176 N. Y. 377, 68 N. E. 658, 98 Am. St. Rep. 689 (where it was also held that failure to inquire whether a resident administrator had been appointed was negligence sufficient to charge a bank making payment with the knowledge which inquiry would have furnish ed). But, as .a rule, the power of the execu
tor or administrator is confined to the state appointing ; In re Crawford's Estate, 68 Ohio St. 58, 67 N. E. 156, 96 Am. St. Rep. 648. The domiciliary administrator will sometimes be recognized er comitate by courts of another state ; State v. Fulton (Tenn.) 49 S. W. 297. The English doctrine is otherwise ; Whart. Confi. L. 626 ; Sto. Conti. L. 515 a. See Dicey, Confi. L. ch. X. (c), ch. XVII. (B), with Moore's American notes. So, by agreement of the parties, he was allowed to become a party in his representative capacity ; Ellis v. Ins. Co., 100 Tenn. 177, 43 S. W. 766 ; though it was held that he should not sue in New York for the wrongful death of his in testate without taking out ancillary letters ; Dodge v. North Hudson, 188 Fed. 489.