GRÆME et. al. Admors, verʃus HARRIS.
T
HIS Caufe came before the Court on a cafe ftated, which was in fubftance, as follows:––The interftate, John Græme, in his life time, to wit, in December term 1772, obtained a Judgment againft the Defendant, in a plea of debt, in the County Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. He afterwards died, being refident at the time of his death in Great-Britain, of which kingdom he was a fubject. Upon his deceafe, the Plaintiffs obtained Letters of Adminiftration from the Archbifhop of York, in the faid kingdom, which bore date the 25th of June 1784 ; but to this action, which as a ʃcire ƒacias to revive the above-mentioned Judgment, the Defendant pleaded, that the Plaintiffs never were Adminiftrators: Iffue was thereupon joined ; and this queftion fubmitted to the opinion of the Court, whether under the authority of the Letters of Adminiftration granted by the Archbifhop of York, the Plaintiffs could maintain the prefent action?The point was argued on the 26th of September, by Rawle, for the Plaintiffs, and by Sergeant and Swiƒt for the Defendant.
Rawle relied on the Act of Affembly, which declares, that Letters of Adminiftration granted out of the Province were fufficient for the
purpofe of bringing actions. State Laws. 30. He urged, that this law, as well as other laws of the Province, was recognized and confirmed by the act of the 28th of January, 1777; that fuch letters of adminitration were a competent authority by the law of nations ; Godb. 33.47. and that it had been determined in a fifter State, that letters of adminiftration granted in New-York, were fufficient to maintain actions in Connecticut. Kirb. Rep. 270.
Sergeant and Swiƒt contended, that the neceffary operation of the Revolution, had altered the law declared in the act of Affembly, and the words “ out oƒ the province, ” were evidently meant of places within the Britiʃh dominions. They urged, that this was an attempt to give more force to the letters of adminiftration, than they would be entitled to even in the Britiʃh dominions. They urged, that this was an attempt to give more force to the letters of adminiftration, than they would be entitled to even in the Britiʃh dominions; for, it there were bona notabilia, in England, and in Ireland, letters of adminiftration muft be taken out in both kingdoms. 2Bac. Abr. 399. 11 Vin. 59. pl. 6. ibid. 74 pl. 1. or, even if there were bona notabilia in two different provinces, as Canterbury and York, letters of adminiftration muft be granted in each. Palm. 163. The arguments ab inconvenianti, are likewife in favor of the Defendants ; for, if this authority is good, the creditors of the inteftate muft purfue the adminiftrators in England, or any foreign country, where the law differs with refpect to the priority of debts. Befides, the fecurity given by the adminiftrators, is only with relation to the apparent value of the perfonal eftate where adminiftration is granted.––See 2 State Laws 41. Art. oƒ Conƒed. art. 4. Conʃt. Penn. ʃect. 34.
The Court, having confidered the cafe and arguments, were unanimoufly of opinion, that the letters of adminiftration, granted by the archbifhop of York, were not a fufficient authority to maintain an action in this Commonwealth ; and gave,