Case Name: BRODIE, Administrator of LIGHTFOOT against BICKLEY, Administrator de bonis non of POLGREEN
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1830-03-27
Citations: 2 Rawle 431
Docket Number: 
Parties: BRODIE, Administrator of LIGHTFOOT against BICKLEY, Administrator de bonis non of POLGREEN.
Judges: Huston, J., and Tod, J., were absent in consequence of indisposition.
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Rawle)
Volume: 2
Pages: 431–438

Head Matter:
[Philadelphia,
March 27, 1830.]
BRODIE, Administrator of LIGHTFOOT against BICKLEY, Administrator de bonis non of POLGREEN.
Debt will not lie against an administrator here, on a judgment against a foreign administrator of the same-intestate,
This action, which was debt on a judgment, obtained in the island of Barbadoes, by the plaintiff’s intestate, against Susanna B. Polgreen, administratrix of Thomas B. Polgreen, upon whose estate letters of administration de bonis non were granted to the pre- ; ent defendant, by tbe register for the probate of wills, &c. for the ity and county of Phit.adelphia, was brought in this court to July Term, 1815.
The case will be best understood from the pleadings. The decla■ation was as follows: — ,
:cPhiladelphia.County, ss. •
v ■ ££Of the Term of June, 1815, No. 34.
££ JPbrahdm Bickley, administrator de bonis non of the goods ind chattels, rights and credits-which were of Thomas Bickley Pol-green, deceased, unadministered, was summoned to answer David Brodie, administrator of all and singular, the goods, and chattels, rights and credits, which were of Samuel Francis ' Lightfoot, deceased, at the time of his death, of a plea, that he render unto the ■said David Brodie the sum of twenty thousand dollars, lawful money of the United Slates, which .he unjustly detains from him, and whereupon the said David Brodie, by Benjamin Tilghman, his attorney, complains, for, that whereas the said Samuel Francis Lightfoot heretofore, to wit, at a Court of Common Pleas in and for the island of Barbadoes, and within the jurisdiction of the said court, on the 25th day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred-and-ninety-two,.by the consideration and judgment of the said court, recovered against the said Susanna. Dorothy Polgreen, administratrix of. all and singular the goods and chattels, rights- and credits of the said Thomas Bickley Polgreen, as well the sum of two thousand pounds current money of the said island of Barbadoes, which, in and by the said court, were then and there adjudged to the said Samuel Francis Light-foot, for the non-payment of a certain debt due upon a certain bond or obligation under áéal, made and executed by the said Thomas Bickley Polgreen, on the 5th day of fLugust, .in the year of our Lord one thousand séven hundred and seventy-two, to the said Samuel Francis Lightfoot, as also the sum of two thousand pounds, current money of the said. island of Barbadoes, for his costs and charges by him about his said suit expended in that béhalf, to the said Samuel Francis Lightfoot, by the said court, of his own assent, then and there adjudged, whereof the said Susanna Dorothy Polgreen, administratrix as aforesaid is convict,- which said judgment still remains in that court in full force and effect, in nowise satisfied or annulled. And the said David Brodie, in fact saith, that the debt, damages,' costs, and charges aforesaid, in form aforesaid recovered, are of great value, to wit, Qf the value of six thousand four hundred and thirty-two dollars, lawful money of the United ■States, to wit, at the county aforesaid: And that neither he, the said David Brodie, since the decease of the said Samuel Francis Lightfoot, nor the said Samuel Francis Lightfoot, during his life time, have obtained execution, or received payment of the said judgment, or any part thereof, from the said Susanna D. Polgreen, during her life time, or from ..the said Abraham Bickley, since the death of the said Susanna Dorothy. Polgreen, by reason whereof, an action has accrued to the said David Brodie, to demand and to have of and from the said Abraham Bickley, the said, sum of six thousand four hundred and thirty-two dollars, above named; nevertheless,-the said Abraham Bickley hath not, (though often requested,) paid the said sum of money, or any part thereof to the said Samuel Francis Lightfoot, during his life time, nor to the said David Brodie, since the death of the said Samuel Francis Lightfoot, (to which said David Brodie, after the decease of the said Samuel Francis Lightfoot, to wit; on the 8th day of June, Anno Domini, one thousand eight hundred and fifteen, administration of all and singular the goods and chattels, rights and credits, which were of the said Samuel Francis Lightfoot at the time of his death, who died intestate, was in due form of law granted by the register of wills for the city and county of Philadelphia,) but he, to do so, hath hitherto wholly refused, and still doth refuse, to the damage of the said David Brodie, twenty thousand dollars, and thereof he brings suit, &c. And.the said David Brodie brings here into court, the letters of administration aforesaid, &c.’’
To this declaration, the defendant put in the following pleas, viz.—
“1. And the said Abraham Bickley, for a further plea in this behalf, with the leave of the court first had and obtained, according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, saith, that the said David Brodie ought not to have, and maintain his action aforesaid thereof, against him; because, he says, that the letters of administration granted to him, the said Abraham, were so granted by the register for the probate of wills, and granting letters of administration in and for the city and county of Philadelphia, to wit; on the 9th day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-six; and that he had not, at any time, and has not now, any other letters of administration; and that he has not received, administered, or medd.led with any goods, chattels, rights or credits, which were of the said Thomas Bickley Polgreen, but such as' he might rightfully receive and administer, under the said letters: and he further says, that the letters of administration of the said Susanna Dorothy Polgreen, in the plaintiff’s declaration alleged, (and under which she was impleaded and sued, and under which she confessed the judgment in the said declaration alleged,) were not granted by the said register, nor by any register for the probate of wills, and granting of letters of administration within the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, nor by any register, or other officer, or person authorised to grant letters of administration in any state, district, or territory, within the United States, but that the same were granted in parts beyond the seas, out of the jurisdiction of the United States, and of the state of Pennsylvania, and out of the jurisdiction of all the states, districts, and territories of the United States, to wit; at the island of Barbadoes: without this, that any other letters of administration were ever granted to the said Susanna Dorothy Polgreen, and without this, that any other judgment, as the plaintiff in his declaration has alleged, was rightfully rendered: all which he-is ready to verify. Wherefore, be prays judgment, if the said David Brodie, administrator, &c. ought to have, or maintain his aforesaid action against him, &c.
“2. And the said Abraham Bickley, for a further plea in this behalf, with the leave of the court, first had and obtained, according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, saith, that the said David Brodie ought not to have and maintain his action aforesaid against him; because, he says, that heretofore, and before the letters of administration of the said Susanna Dorothy Polgreen, granted in the island of Barbadoes, and herein after mentioned, to wit; on the 14th day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety, letters of administration of the goods and chattels, rights and credits of the said Thomas Bickley Polgreen, were duly granted by the register for the probate of wills, and granting letters of administration in and for the city and county of Philadelphia, to one Adam Hubley, and afterwards, and after the death of the said Adam Hubley, to wit; on the 9th day of May, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-six, letters of administration 'of the goods and chattels, rights and credits, of the said Thomas Bickley Pol-green, unadministered by the said Adam Hubley, were duly granted by the said register to the said Abraham Bickley, the letters of administration of the, said Susanna Dorothy Polgreen, granted in the island of Barbadoes, being then in full force; and that he, the said Abraham, had not at any time, and has not now, any other letters of administration; and that he has not received, administered, or meddled with any goods, chattels, rights or credits of the intestate, but such as he might rightfully receive and administer under the said letters: and he further saith, that the letters of administration to the said Susanna Dorothy Polgreen, in the said plaintiff’s declaration alleged, were not granted by the said register, nor by any register' for the probate of wills and granting letters of administration in the state of Pennsylvania, nor by any register, or other officer, or-other person authorised to grant letters of administration in any state,'district, or territory, within.the United States; but that the same were granted in parts beyond the seas, and out of the jurisdiction of the United States, and of the state of Pennsylvania, and out of the jurisdiction of all the states, districts, and territories of the United States, to wit; at Barbadoes: without this, that any other letters of administration were ever granted to the said Susanna Dorothy Polgreen; and without this, that any such judgment as the plaintiff in his declaration has alleged, was rightfully rendered: all which he is ready to verify. Wherefore, he prays judgment, if the said David Brodie, administrator, &e. ought to have, or maintain his aforesaid action against him,” &e.
“3. And the said Abraham Bickley, administrator, &e. for a further plea in this behalf, with the leave of the court first had and obtained, according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, saith, that the said David Brodie ought not to have and maintain his action aforesaid thereof, against him; because, he says, the letters of administration, granted to him, the said Abraham Bickley, were so granted by the register for the probate of wills and granting letters ofadministration in and for the city and county of Philadelphia, to wit; on the 9th day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-six, and that he had hot, at any time, and has not now, any other letters of administration, and that he has not received, administered, or meddled with any goods, chattels, rights, or credits of the intestate, but such as he might rightfully receive and administer under the said letters: and he further says, that the letters of administration of the said Susanna Dorothy Polgreen, in tho said,plaintiff’s declaration alleged, were not granted by the said register, nor by any register for the probate of wills and granting letters of administration in the slate of Pennsylvania, nor by any register, or other officer, or other person authorised to grant letters of administration in any state, district, or territory, within the United States, but that the same were granted in parts beyond the seas, and out of the jurisdiction of the United States, and of the state of Pennsylvania, and out of the jurisdiction of all the states, districts, or territories of the United States, to wit; at Barbadoes: without this, that any other letters of administration were ever granted to the said Susanna Dorothy Polgreen; and without this, that any such judgment as the plaintiff in his declaration has. alleged, was rightfully rendered; all which he is ready to verify. Whereupon he prays judgment, if the said David.Brodie, administrator, &c. ought to have, or maintain his aforesaid action against him.
“ 4. And the said Abraham Bickley, for further plea in this behalf, with leave of the court first had and obtained, according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, saith, that the judgment in the said declaration alleged, so as aforesaid confessed, and rendered against the said Susanna Dorothy Polgreen, as administratrix of the said Thomas Bickley Polgreen, was not rendered under any letters of administration, granted by the register for the proffate of wills, and granting of letter^ of administration in- and for the city and county of Philadelphia, nor under any letters of administration, granted by any register, or other officer, or other person, authorised to grant letters of administration in the-common wealth of Pennsylvania, or in any state, district, or territory in the United States; but that the said judgment in the said declaration alleged, was confessed and rendered against the said Susanna Dorothy Polgreen, under letters of administration, granted in parts beyond the seas, and out of the jurisdiction of the United States and of the state of Pennsylvania, and outpf the jurisdiction of all the states, districts, and territories of the United States, to wit: at the island of Barbadoes. Without this, that any other letters of administration were ever granted to the said Susanna Dorothy Pol-green; and without this, that any such judgment as the plaintiff in his declaration has alleged, was rightfully rendered; all which he is ready to verify. Whereupon he prays judgment if the said David Brodie, administrator, &e. ought to have, and maintain his aforesaid action.”
To the first, third, and fourth pleas, the plaintiff demurred. To the second, he replied, “ that the said didam Hubley, administrator, &c. has not paid the debt or sum of money, in the declaration mentioned, either to Samuel Francis Lightfoot, during his life time, or to the said David Brodie, administrator, &c. since the death of the said Samuel Francis Lightfoot, but the same remains unpaid and due.”
The defendant joined in the plaintiff’s demurrers, and demurred to his replication to the second plea. '
After argument by Atherton and Tilghman, for the plaintiff, and by T. Sergeant and J. Sergeant, for the defendant,

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by •
Gibson, C. J.
— The question raised by the demurrers is, whether debt lies against an administrator here on a judgment against a foreign administrator of the same intestate. Did an administrator represent the person of the intestate without qualification or restriction, the plaintiff's, argument would be incontrovertible. But it is clear, that his c.ommision extends only to assets of which the ordinary had jurisdiction; and it constitutes him a representative of the intestate no further than as regards the administration of those particular'assets. His power is but co-extensive with that of him from whom it is derived; and it is, consequently, incompetent, directly or indirectly, to affect assets which belong to another jurisdiction. This principle is plainly discernible in the few decisions that bear upon the point. As was held in Dowdale's Case, 6 Rep. 42, an administrator may be sued in a foreign country; because, the action being transitory, follows his person, and the jury may inquire of assets in his hands at home or abroad. But the judgment would not affect any, assets, the administration of which had not been committed to him; as in Borden v. Borden, 5 Mass. Rep. 67, where a judgment in Massachusetts against one who had obtained administration in Rhode Island, was held insufficient to warrant execution of the intestate's land. In perfect accordance with this, is The Select Men of Boston v. Boylston, 2 Mass. 384, and Dawes v. Boylston, 9 Mass. 337, in which it was determined, that an administrator, under letters taken out in Massachusetts, could not be cited to account for assets received as administrator cum testamento annexo, in England. Thus we see that an administration under foreign authority, has no connexion with an administration granted here; and according to the maxim by which concurrent rights are to be viewed, as if they existed separately in different persons, a judgment against a foreign administrator could not be the foundation of an action against the same person to affect assets in his hands by' virtue of administration here, in as much as the privity to support it must be official, and not personal. If, however, he were administrator here at the time of the judgment abroad, it might be otherwise, as the jury might inquire of the assets in his hands there as well as at home. The privity between an administrator de bonis non, and his predecessor, which has been pressed as analogous, is entirely different, the former being the official successor of the latter, while in the case of separate administrations .of different parts of the same estate, the authority of each administrator is respectively paramount to that of the other. But the case of an executor de son tort, who represents the person of the decedent only so far as regards the assets with which he has intermeddled, is, as far as it goes, entirely analogous; and in Nass v. Vanswearingen, 7 Serg. & Rawle, 192, it was determined, that a judgment against him is insufficient to authorise execution of the decedent's land. The authority of an administrator, under letters granted in a sister state, to meddle with the assets here, is an anomaly, produced by an unexampled spirit of comity in the courts of this state, which will probably be attended, in this respect, with perplexity and confusion.
In theory, therefore, there are insuperable objections to the action; and, as regards convenience and justice, how stands it in practice? A confession of judgment is an admission of assets which creates no liability to the other creditors, or the persons entitled to distribution; and personal liability, even to the plaintiff, may be obviated by restraining the judgment to assets quando acciderint. What then is to prevent collusion? On the principle of the argument, even naked admissions of the foreign administrator would be competent to charge the assets here. To guard against this, the law necessarily limits the power of an administrator to assets, for the due administration of which he and his sureties are responsible. Of the reason and policy of this, the case at bar, in which the foreign judgment is marked to the use of the administratrix who suffered it, is a forcible illustration. It is of little moment, that such a judgment is not conclusive, and that if there be fraud in fact, the administrator here may show it. It is sufficient that the doctrine would shift the burden of proof in the first instance, and send the defen dant abroad, under every possible disadvantage, to investigate transactions, the'secret springs of which must necessarily be hidden from him. In every view, then, the defendant's demurrer must be sustained, and the plaintiff's demurrers overruled.
Huston, J., and Tod, J., were absent in consequence of indisposition.
Judgment for the defendant.