Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/634

620 V&paBHi BEPOSTEB. �Is not of such a nature that it can be imparted;to a Massa- chusetts executor or adrainistrator virtute offiài, so as to give him the right to sue in our courts, and to transmit the right cf action from one person to another in connection with the representative of the deeeased. The only construction -which the statute can receive is that it confers certain new and pe- culiar powers upon the personal representative in New York. A succession in the right of action, not existing by the com- mon law, cannot be presdribed by the laws of one state to the tribunals of another." To the same effect is the decision in Woodward v. Michigan Southern, etc., B, Co. 10 Ohio St. 121. The oomplaint is dismissed. ���TiEENAH ». BOOTH. �(Oireuit Court, N. D. lUinoM. Octobcr 13, 1880.) �1, 'WeitopiErrob — SnPBBsEDBAs.^The fact that a citation wa» not prqsented, to and signçd by a jndge within 60 daysiafter the entry qf judgment, will not necessarily prevent a writ of error from operating as a supersedeaa. �Motion for Writ of Possession. �George e William Burry, for motion, cited Sa^e v. R. Co. 93 U. S, 417; Kitchen v- Bàndolph, Id. 86; City of Wash- ington Y. Denison, 6 Wall. 496; Stockton v. Bisliop, 2 How. 74; Rubhcr Co. v. Goodyear^ 6 Vf ail. 166; Silver v. Ladd, 6 Wall. 440; Palmer v. Donner, 7 Wall. 541; U. S. v. Hodge, �3 How. 534; Bacon v. Hart, 1 Black, 38; U. S. v. Ctirry, 6 How. 113; Hogan v. Ross, 11 How. 297; Feret v. Hill, 15 Common Bench, 207 ; Conkling's Treatise, 671. �Needham e Miller, for defendant, cited Sage v. R. Co. 96 U. S. 712; Carroll v. Dorsey, 20 How. 207; U. S. v. Yates, 6 How. 605; Alviso v. U. S. 5 Wall. 824; U. S. v. Gomez, 1 Wall. 701 ; Bangs v. R. Co. 23 How, 1 ; Davison v. Lanier, �4 Wall. 447; Barton v. Forsyth, 5 Wall. 190; Villaboes v. U. S. 6 How. 89, 91. ����