M'Cullough v. Young
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN this case it was agreed by the counsel to submit a single -i- question to the consideration of the court; namely, whether the plaintiff as administrator &c. could maintain his action against the defendant by virtue of letters of administration granted to him in the state of 1k/ar yland.
1Per curiam
The act of Assembly referred to has uniformly been considered not to extend further than to the provinces in this country at the time the' act was passed, and Grceme v. Harris turned upon that ground. At the same time it has been as uniformly understood both before and since the revolution that letters of administration granted in a sister state are a sufficient authority to maintain an action here; and such has been the practice without regard to the particular intestate laws of the state where they have been granted. There may be indeed great" inconveniences from the law, but it lies with…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Laughlin v. SolomonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Shinn's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Moore v. FieldsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1862
- Sayre's Executors v. Helme's ExecutorsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1869
- Shakespeare v. Fidelity Insurance, Trust & Safe Deposit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.