SPECIAL PERSONAL RELATIONS. EXeCia0r8 and administrators, in the absence of a spe cific statute authorizing it, have no power to sue or be sued by virtue of a foreign appoint ment as such ; Westl. Priv. Int. Law 279; Brookshire v. Dubose, 55 N. C. 276; Kirk patrick v. Taylor, 10 Rich. (S. C.) 393; L. R. 5 Ch. App. 315 ; Swatzel v. Arnold, 1 Woolw. 383, Fed. Cas. No. 13,682; Clark v. Blackiugton, 110 Mass. 369; Parker's Ap peal, 61 Pa. 478 ; Watson's Adm'r T. Pack's Adm'r, 3 W. Va. 154; Turner v. Linam. 55 Ga. 253 ; Morton v. Hatch, 54 Ma. 408; Bell's Adm'r v. Nichols, 38 Ala. 678; Gilman v. Gilman, 54 Me. 453; Armstrong v. Lear, 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 169, 6 L. Ed. 589; 3 Q. B. 498 ; 2 Ves. 35. Where a foreign executor has brought assets into a state, then as the title is in him he can sue as an individual, but not as executor; Talmage v. Chapel, 16 Mass. 71.
In the United States, however, payment to such executor will be an equitable discharge, if the money has been distributed to those entitled; Doolittle v. Lewis, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 49, 11 Am. Dec. 389.
Ships and cargoes and the proceeds there of, on the death of the owner, complete their voyages and return to the home port to be administered; Story, Conti. Laws § 520; Wells v. Miller, 45 Ill. 382; Orcutt v. Orms,
3 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 459.
See EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.
Guardians have no power over the prop erty, whether real or personal, of their wards, by virtue of a foreign appointment; Morrell v. Dickey, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 153; Kraft v. Wickey, 4 Gill & J. (Md.) 332, 23 Am. Dec. 569; 4 T. R. 185; they must have the sanction of the appropriate local tri bunal; Curtis v. Smith, 6 Blatch. 537, Fed. Cas. No. 3,505; Noonan v. Bradley, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 394, 19 L. Ed. 757; Woodworth v. Spring, 4 Allen (Mass.) 321; Whart. Conti. Laws § 260; L. R. 2 Eq. 74.
As to the power of a guardian over the domicil of his ward, see Domicil,.
As to their extra-territorial powers, see RECEIVERS.
Sureties come under the general rules, and their contracts are governed by the lex loci; but in the case of a bond with sure ties, given to the government by a navy agent for the faithful performance of his duties, the liability of the sureties is govern ed by the common law, as the accountability of the principal was at Washington, the seat of government ; Cox v. U. S., 6 Pet. (U. S.) 172, 8 L. Ed. 359 (the case coming up from Louisiana). See Duncan v. U. S., 7 Pet. (U. S.) 435, 8 L. Ed. 739. See SURETYSHIP.