Sayre v. Helme

• Decision Date: 11 May 1869
• Citation: 61 Pa. 299
• Parties: Sayre's Executors <I>versus</I> Helme's Executors.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 299

61 Pa. 299

Sayre's Executors versus Helme's Executors.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 10, 1869.

May 11, 1869.

March 10th 1869.

Before THOMPSON, C. J., READ, AGNEW and WILLIAMS, JJ. SHARSWOOD, J., at Nisi Prius

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Tioga county: No. 97, to January Term 1869 S. F. Wilson and M. F. Elliot, for plaintiffs in error.—By the Pennsylvania statute executors under letters testamentary from another state cannot act as such here: Act of March 15th 1832, § 6, Pamph. L. 136, Purd. 275, pl. 14.

R. Sherwood and W. H. Smith, for defendants in error, referred to the Act of March 1832; McCullough v. Young, 1 Binn. 63; Dond v. Way, 17 Legal Intel. 316.

The opinion of the court was delivered, May 11th 1869, by THOMPSON, C. J.

The only question presented in this case on argument, was, whether the executors of B. S. Sayre, deceased, who was domiciled in the state of New York at the time of his death, could, under letters testamentary granted by the Surrogate's Court of Orange county, New York, maintain suit for the recovery of a debt due the estate, by a citizen of this state. The court below held that he could, but for insufficient reasons, we think.

That there was but a single debt to be collected in Pennsylvania did not validate an authority which was otherwise invalid. Deminimis is an inappropriate maxim in such a case. One demand might be the entire assets of even a large estate; it would not do, therefore, to make this the test. The rule in 1 Binn. 63, sanctioning suit by a foreign administrator, has long since ceased to be law in this Commonwealth. To allow it, would be to enable executors or administrators authorized by a foreign jurisdiction, to collect and carry away the assets of a foreign decedent's estate, and compel domestic claimants to follow them. And to remedy this, the 6th section of the Act of 15th March 1832, relating to Registers and Registers' Courts, Pamph. L. 135, contains this provision among others, that "no letters testamentary or of administration, or otherwise, purporting to authorize any person to intermeddle with the estate of a decedent which may be granted out of this Commonwealth, shall confer upon such person any of the powers and authorities possessed by an executor or administrator, under letters granted within this state." In Moore v. Fields, 6 Wright 467, we distinctly held that executors and administrators of another state could not sue here by virtue of letters granted...