Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/53

PULLIAM V. PULLIAM. 41 �did not break the deseent to the heirs, nor confer such title on the executer as would enable him to maintain ejectment. But if the executor assumed the burden of executing this will in Arkansas by his qualification in Tennessee, he was, by all the authorities. bound to do whatever was necessary under the laws of Arkansas to effectu- ate his power of sale, and convert the lands into money for the pay- aient of debts. It is not pretended that he bas done anything as respects the land, and he concedes that whatever was imposed upon him in this regard bas been wholly neglected. What, then, was the legal effect of his qualification as executor in Tennessee alone ? �This was the domicile of the testator, and the administration in chief was here; all other administrations were ancillary to this. The administrator or executor at the domicile msLy always lawfully receive and give acquittances for assets in another state. WUkins v. Ellett, 9 Wall. 740 ; Trecothick v. Austin, 4 Mason, 16, 32; Swatzel \. Arnold, 1 Woolw. 384, 389, In the last case it is said by Mr. Justice Miller that the impediment to the exercise of full powers, even by an admin- istrator, in a jurisdiction foreign to that of granting his letters, is essentially technical and formai, and should not be strained beyond its necessary application. The supreme court of Tennessee says in Young v. O'Neal, 3 Sneed, 55, that "as an executor or administrator has no authority to sue for or collect the assets of which the deceased may have died possessed in a foreign country, the law does not impose on him the duty of doing so. He has no title to or authority over the assets in another state ; neither is he responsible therefor. " And it was held that a voluntary payment to a foreign administrator was not good. But in WUkins v. Ellett, supra, the supreme court of the United States repudiates that doctrine, and holds that "the origi- nal administrator, with letters taken out at the place of the domicile, is invested with the title to all the personal property of the deceased for the purpose of converting the effects of the estate, paying the debts, and making distribution of the residue, according to the law of the place or directions of the will, as the case may be. * * * The difficulty does not lie in any defect of title to the possession, but in the limitation or qualification of the general principles, in respect to Personal property, founded upon the policy of the foreign country, to protect home creditors." Now, it is just as competent for a testator to convert his lands into personalty by will, and invest his executor with the duty of so administering it, as it is for the law to confer upon an administrator the title to personalty in a foreign jurisdiction. Lands charged with the payment of debts are always considered per- ��� �