THE DECISIONS OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, AT JANUARY TERM, 1841. 1*] *JAMES MOODY VAUGHAN et al., Ap- the courts of the District of Columbia, in the same pellants, V. manner as if the same had been granted to such persons by the proper authority in the District of Columbia. The power is limited by its terms to HENRY NORTHUP, Administrator of James the institution of suits; and does not authorize Moody, Deceased, et al. Administrator deriving authority from another State not suable in District of Columbia-administration limited territorily-government of United States no particular domicile-administrators appointed in State may sue in District of Columbia. An administrator, appointed, and deriving his authority from another State, is not liable to be sued in the District of Columbia, in his official character, for assets lawfully received by him in the District, under and in virtue of his original letters of administration. Every grant of administration is strictly confined In its authority and operation to the limits of the territory of the government which grants it, and does not, de jure, extend to other countries. It cannot confer, as a matter of right, any authority to collect assets of the deceased, in any other State; and whatever operation is allowed to it beyond the original territory of the grant, is a mere matter of courtesy, which every nation is at liberty to yield or to withhold, according to its own policy and pleasure, with reference to its own institutions, and the interests of its own citizens. The administrator is exclusively bound to account for all the assets which he receives under, and by virtue of his administration, to the proper tribunals of the government under which he derives his authority. The tribunals of other States have no right to interfere with or control the application of those assets according to the lex locl. Hence it has become an established doctrine that an administrator cannot, in his official capacity, sue for any debts due to his intestate, in the courts of another State and that he is not liable to be sued in that capacity, in the courts of the latter, by any creditor, for any debt due there by his intestate. The debts due from the government of the United States, have no locality at the seat of government. The United States, in their sovereign capacity, have no particular place of domicile: but possess. in contemplation of law, an ubiquity throughout the Union; and the debts due by them are not to be treated like the debts of a private debtor, which constitute local assets in his own domicile. The administrator of a creditor of the government, duly appointed in the State where he was domiciliated at his death, has full authority to receive payment, and give a full discharge of the debt due to his intestate, in any place where the government may choose to pay it; whether it be at the seat of government, or at any other place where the funds are deposited. 2*] The Act of Congress of June, 1822, authorIzes any person to whom letters testamentary or of administration have been granted, in the States of the United States, to prosecute claims by suits in suits against an executor or administrator. The effect of this law was to make all debts due by persons in the district, not local assets, for which the administrator was bound to account in the courts of the district; but general assets, which he had full authority to receive, and for which he was bound to account in the courts of the State from which he derived his letters of administration. The case of Kane v. Paul. 14 Peters, 33, cited. ON appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for Alexandria, in the Dis. trict of Columbia. A bill was filed on the equity side of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, stating that the complainants are the next of kin and distributees of James Moody, deceased, who resided in Kentucky at the time of his death: that the defendant, Northrup, took out letters of administration on the estate of said Moody, in the proper court in Kentucky, and by virtue of said letters claimed and received from the government of the United States a large sum of money, to wit, fifty-two hundred dollars. The bill further stated that the complainants reside in Virginia; that Northup was in the District of Columbia at the time of filing the bill (and Northup was actually found in said district, as appears by the marshal's return of the subpoena), and that the other defendants reside in Kentucky, and pretend to be the next of kin and distributees of said Moody. The bill prays an account of said estate against said Northup, and distribution of the assets received from the United States, etc. Northup answered and pleaded to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that he was only responsible to the court in Kentucky, in which he had obtained letters of administration: he then went on and answered the bill at large, denying all its material allegations. other defendants also came in and answered The the bill. The complainants ordered the plea of Northup to the jurisdiction of the court to be set down for argument; and upon the argument, the court below ordered the bill of complaint to be dismissed. The complainants appealed to the Supreme Court. the appellants, and by Mr. Coxe for the ap *The case was argued by Mr. Brent for [*3 pellee. Mr. Brent stated that the question was whether a foreign administrator, one who had taken out letters of administration in another State, can come into the District of Columbia, and receive money in the district, and was not answerable for the amount so received in the district. The appellee, Henry Northup, was in the district when the suit was brought. ject. The law never intended to oblige foreign administrator to stand a suit here; it would be vastly injurious, if such should be the law. The act giving jurisdiction to the courts of the United States in the District of Columbia, cannot receive the construction given to it by the counsel for the appellants; the jurisdiction is given in cases properly cognizable in the courts, when one of the parties is in the district. Cited, Story's Conflict of Laws, sec. 422, 513, 515. It is admitted that at common law an administrator is only liable to account where the administration is granted. But this rule should not be applied to cases in the District The argument for the appellants is that as of Columbia. There would be a peculiar hard- the money was received in the District of ship in the rule if it is applied here. A small Columbia, it is to be distributed and adamount of security might be taken on the ministered according to the laws of the Disgranting letters of administration; and on those trict. It is important that this question shall letters, a large amount of assets might be re- be settled. This was a claim in the hands of ceived out of the State granting the same. an administrator in Kentucky, of a debt due The creditors and next of kin would have no to a citizen of Virginia, by the State of Virrelief against the sureties of such an ad-ginia, for military services, for which the ministrator. United States had agreed to pay. Is this to bring the fund, because it was received in the district, subject to the laws of the district? An Act of Congress of the 24th of June, 1812, authorizes administrators from other States of the Union to collect money and institute suits in the District of Columbia. This places the foreign administrator on the same footing as if letters had been granted to him in the District of Columbia, and places him under the same responsibilities. The court is bound to take notice of foreign administrators coming into the district. Kane v. Paul, 14 Peters, 33. Thus, no administration to the effects of Moody could be obtained in this district, after the granting of the letters to Northup in Kentucky, but the funds were all received here by the administrator; and the court will administer the assets at the place where they have been received, and at the place of suit. 11 Massachusetts Reports, 264. A legatee can sue the administrator, when he obtains the assets. 4 Mass. 344; 3 Peters's Rep. 144. Story's Conflict of Laws, 1st ed. 425, declares that nonresident claimants are to be regarded in the same manner as residents. Cited, 1 Mason, 381; 1 Story's Conflict of Laws, sec. 534, 531, 588. The Act of Congress of 1821, gives jurisdiction to the courts of the District of Columbia 4*] in all cases in law or equity where *both or either of the parties are residents within the District of Columbia. The probate courts of Kentucky have not exclusive jurisdiction over the distribution of assets. 1 A. K. Marshall's Rep. 459. As to the pleadings, cited, Livingston v. Story, 11 Peters, 393; Mitford's Pleading, 305, 309. Mr. Coxe, for the appellees: In the case of Livingston v. Story, there was a plea to the disability of the plaintiff. The objection in this case is to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, in the matter of this administrator, and the distribution of the assets, which must be made, as a great portion of them has already been made in the State of Kentucky. The Act of Congress of 1812 does no more than authorize administrators of other States to sue in the District of Columbia; this was necessary in consequence of the large claims in the district from every part of the Union. The act goes no farther than this, and not to abrogate all the laws prevailing on the sub Mr. Justice Story delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, sitting for the County of Washington, dismissing a [*5 bill in equity, brought by the appellants against the appellees. The facts, so far as they are necessary to be stated upon the present occasion, are, that one James Moody, an inhabitant of Kentucky, died in that State about the year 1802, intestate, without leaving any children; that in May or June, 1833, the defendant Northup obtained letters of administration upon his estate from the proper court of Jefferson County, in Kentucky; and afterwards under and in virtue of those letters of administration, he received from the Treasury of the United States the sum of five thousand two hundred and fifteen dollars and fifty-six cents, for money due to the intestate, or his representatives, for military services rendered during the Revolutionary war. The present bill was brought by the appellants, claiming to be the next of kin; and heirs of the intestate, for their distributive shares of the said money, against Northup as administrator; and the other defendants, who are made parties, are asserted to be adverse claimants, as next of kin and distributees. At the hearing of the cause in the court below; the same having been set down for argument upon the answer of Northup, denying the jurisdiction of the court; the bill was ordered to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and from that decree the present appeal has been taken. Under these circumstances the question is broadly presented whether an administrator, appointed and deriving his authority from another State, is liable to be sued here, in his official character, for assets lawfully received by him under and in virtue of his original letters of administration. We are of opinion, both upon principle and authority, that he is not. Every grant of administration is strictly confined in its authority and operation to the limits of the territory of the government which grants it; and does not, de jure, extend to other countries. It cannot confer, as a |