Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/651

Rh, in the folio wing form : "You having been appointed by this court administrator on the real and personal estate of John Lavin, absent from the state without due proof of his being alive, late of the town of Cranston, and having given bond as the law directs, are hereby authorized and empowered to receive, recover and take possession of ail and whatsoever real and personal estate which to the said John Lavin doth appertain and belong, and the eame fully to administer ac- cording to law. Witnesses, etc." On the fourteenth of Febru- ary, 1877, John M. Brennan applied to the surrogate of New York for ancillary letters of administration. Upon this ap- plication he presented his Ehode Island letters, duly authen- ticated, and also his own affidavit, "that to the best of depo- nents information and belief the said John Lavin is dead." �The petition of John M. Brennan to the surrogate states that "your petitioner is a resident of Providence, etc., and is the administrator duly appointed by the probate court of the town of Cranston, county of Providence, Ehode Island, of the personal estate of the said John Lavin, deceased, etc." Upon this petition, and the affidavit and the Ehode Island letters, the surrogate of New York issued ancillary letters of admin- istration, which are addressed to "John M. Brennan, etc., administrator duly appointed by the probate court of the town of Cranston, etc., of the personal estate of John Lavin, deceased;" and the letters recite that the said John Lavin is dead. Under the authority of these letters Brennan coUected the money of the bank as stated in the answer. �The statute of Ehode Island pei-mits and provides for ad- ministration on the estate of persons who leave the state and remain absent for three years. This is ail that is required to be shown under the statute, before the issuing of the letters. This is ail that is recited in the Ehode Island letters. They do not purport, on their face, to be letters of administration on the estate of a deceased person. �The first question to be considered is whether payment to Brennan bars the plaintifï's claim, on the ground that Bren- nan held the letters of administration issued by the surrogate of New York. In the case of Boderigas v. East River Savings ��� �