DISTRIBUTION. The distribution or disposal of the estate by an executor is as directed by the will. The administrator must distrib ute the residue among those entitled to it under direction of the court and accordin: to law ; Lamb v. Carroll, 28 N. C. 4; Appea of Stewart, 86 Pa. 149; Appeal of Kline, 8( Pa. 363; Marshall v. Hitchcock, 3 Redf. (N Y.) 461. But if he recognizes a claim proper to be paid, and subsequently find: that there is no legal foundation for it, it h not binding upon the estate; Webster v. 14 Compte, 74 Md. 249, 22 Atl. 232. And ever after action brought against him by a credi tor he may apply the assets in payment of the debt of another creditor ; 24 Q. B. Div 364.
The great rule is, that personal property is regulated by the law of the domicil. The rights of the distributees vest as soon as the intestate dies, but cannot be sued for till the lapse of the statute period of distribution See 118th Novel of Justinian, Cooper's trans 393: DISTRIBUTION ; CONFLICT OF LAWS.
Compensation. An executor cannot pay himself. His compensation must be ordered by the court; Collins v. Tilton, 58 Ind. 374. Faithful service by an executor is a condi tion to the right of commissions. Misappro priation of funds may forfeit the right; In re Clauser's Estate, 84 Pa. 51.
Commissions are not allowed on a legacy given in trust to an executor; Westerfield v. Westerfield, 1 Bradf. Surr. (N. Y.) 198; Ames v. Downing, 1 Bradf. Surr. (N. Y.) 321. Reasonable expenses are always allow ed an executor ; Thacher v. Dunham, 5 Gray (Mass.) 26; Wilson v. Bates, 28 Vt. 765 ; Ord v. Little, 3 Cal. 287 ; Noel v. Harvey, 29 Miss. 72. When one of two co-executors has done nothing, he should get no commis sion ; White v. Bullock, 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 91. Where a stranger was appointed adminis trator, upon his statement that his service would be gratuitous, he should not be al lowed commissions ; Hilton v. Hilton's Adm'r, 109 S. W. 905, 33 Ky. L. Rep. 276. In Eng land, executors cannot charge for personal trouble or loss of time, and can only be paid for reasonable expenses.
An administrator receives no compensa tion in England ; 3 Mer. 24; but in this country he is paid in proportion to his serv ices, and all reasonable expenses are allowed him; Appeal of Culbertson, 84 Pa. 303. Ad ditional allowance may be made where ex traordinary services have been rendered; In re Moore's Estate, 96 Cal. 522, 31 Pac. 584. An administrator cannot pay himself. His compensation must be ordered by the court ; Collins v. Tilton, 58 Ind. 374. If too small a compensation be awarded him, he may ap peal; Jewett v. Woodward, 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 195; Edelen v. Edelen, 11 Md. 415; Ord v. Little, 3 Cal. 287; Andrew's Ex'rs v. An
drew's Adm'rs, 7 Ohio St. 143; Fowler v. Lockwood, 3 Redf. (N. Y.) 465. Allowance by a probate court cannot be impeached in a court of equity unless fraud or deception has been practiced; Smith, v. Worthington, 53 Fed. 977, 4 C, C. A. 130. He cannot buy the estate, or any part of it, when sold by a common auctioneer to pay debts ; but he may when the auctioneer is a state officer, and the sale public and bona fide; Toler's Adm'r v. Toler, 2 Patt. & H. (Va.) 71; Weeks .v. Gibbs, 9 Mass. 75; Babbitt v. Doe, 4 Ind. 355; Barrington v. Alexander, 6 Ohio St. 189.
Federal Jurisdiction. Matters of pure pro bate are not within the jurisdictions of courts of the United States; but where a state law ggies citizens of the state, in an action or suit inter partes, the right to ques tion the probate of a will, federal courts, at the suit of citizens of other states or aliens will enforce such remedies; Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 25 Sup. 727, 50 L. Ed. 101.
The possession of a state court which will exclude the exercise of power by the federal court, and vice versa, must be the possession of some thing, corporeal or incorporeal, which has been taken under the dominion of the court. A controversy or inquiry is not such a thing, and the pendency of a suit or proceeding in one court, involving a question, controversy, or inquiry, is no bar to the ex ercise of jurisdiction in the determination of the same question, etc., in the other ; Ball v. Tompkins, 41 Fed. 486; American Baptist Home Mission Society v. Stewart, 192 Fed. 976; Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 008, 13 Sup. Ct. 906, 37 L. Ed. 867.
The right to administer property left by a foreigner within the jurisdiction of a state is primarily committed to state law and the public administrator is entitled to adminis ter the estate of an Italian subject dying and leaving'an estate in California, in preference to the Italian. Consul General, who claimed the right under treaty ; In re Ghio's Estate, 157 Cal. 552, 108 Pac. 516, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 549, 137 Am. St. Rep. 145, affirmed in Rocca v. Thompson, 223 U. S. 317, 32 Sup. Ct. 207, 56 L. Ed. 453, where the question whether it is within the treaty-making pow er to provide for administration upon the estates of foreigners dying within a state, by the consul of their country, was suggest ed but not discussed or decided. ' See TREATY.
See Schouler ; Williams; Croswell, Exrs. and Admrs.; Woerner, Law of. Adm.; 2 Lawson, Rights & Rem. 889-1008 ; Holmes, Executors in Early English Law, 3 Sel. Es says in Anglo-Amer. L. H. 736 (9 Harv. L. R. 42); Caillemer, The Executor in England and on the Continent, id. 746.