r Motion to set aside the verdict in this ease, and- enter up judg. ment of nonsuit, on the ground, that the plaintiff’s letters of administration, appeared to have been granted by a court of the State of North Carolina; and that administration had never been committed to bim^byany court of this State. Motion granted-.
See Hayw. Rep. 355. Kirb. Rep. 270: Secus, if no goods in the State. See also. 2 Atk. 63. 1 H. Bl. 146, 152. 3 P. Wm. 370. 9 Rep. 39, 1 Salk. 40. 3 T. R. 387. Cro. Eliz. 472. An Ordinary in Ireland, may commit administration ofgoods within his diocese, in England. 6 Mod. 145. Ld. Raym. 562, 856. And see Fenwick v. Sear’s administrators, 1 Cranch, 259, where it was said in argument, that by the laws of Maryland, letters of administration granted in another State, do not authorise an administration of the assets in Maryland; because, by the testamentary laws of Maryland, the administrator is to give bond, and render' an account of his administration, and the assets aró to bó distributed in the manner prescribed by law. Letters of administration granted under seal, in a sister State, are sufficient authority to maintain an action in Pennsylvania. M'Cullough v. Parland, 1 Bin. 63. Greene v. Harris, 1 Dall. 456.