1789.
purpofe of bringing actions. State Laws. 30. He urged, that this law, as well as other laws of the Province, was recognized and confirmed by the act of the 28th of January, 1777; that fuch letters of adminitration were a competent authority by the law of nations ; Godb. 33.47. and that it had been determined in a fifter State, that letters of adminiftration granted in New-York, were fufficient to maintain actions in Connecticut. Kirb. Rep. 270.
Sergeant and Swiƒt contended, that the neceffary operation of the Revolution, had altered the law declared in the act of Affembly, and the words “ out oƒ the province, ” were evidently meant of places within the Britiʃh dominions. They urged, that this was an attempt to give more force to the letters of adminiftration, than they would be entitled to even in the Britiʃh dominions. They urged, that this was an attempt to give more force to the letters of adminiftration, than they would be entitled to even in the Britiʃh dominions; for, it there were bona notabilia, in England, and in Ireland, letters of adminiftration muft be taken out in both kingdoms. 2Bac. Abr. 399. 11 Vin. 59. pl. 6. ibid. 74 pl. 1. or, even if there were bona notabilia in two different provinces, as Canterbury and York, letters of adminiftration muft be granted in each. Palm. 163. The arguments ab inconvenianti, are likewife in favor of the Defendants ; for, if this authority is good, the creditors of the inteftate muft purfue the adminiftrators in England, or any foreign country, where the law differs with refpect to the priority of debts. Befides, the fecurity given by the adminiftrators, is only with relation to the apparent value of the perfonal eftate where adminiftration is granted.––See 2 State Laws 41. Art. oƒ Conƒed. art. 4. Conʃt. Penn. ʃect. 34.
The Court, having confidered the cafe and arguments, were unanimoufly of opinion, that the letters of adminiftration, granted by the archbifhop of York, were not a fufficient authority to maintain an action in this Commonwealth ; and gave,
Judgement for the Defendant.
BUNNER verʃus NEIL.
T
HIS caufe was removed by Habeas Corpus from the Court of Commn Pleas of Philadelphia County, and, on the trial , a verdict was found in favor of the Plaintiff, for Ł4.10. 8. which the defendant paid to the Prothonotary, and then moved to ftay proceedings, contending, that as the Plaintiff's demand was reduced below Ł.10. by a direct payment, and not by difcount, or fet off, the Plaintiff muft pay the cofts. The Plaintiff, on the other hand, obtained a rule to fhew caufe, why the Defendant fhould not pay doubt cofts, under the Act of Affembly, which provides, that, if the defendant removes the caufe, and a fum under Ł.50 is found for the Plaintiff, the Defendant fhall pay double cofts.
