476 CORRIE'S CASE.—2 BLAND.

for the benefit of his creditors and next of km. Hemlocks Case, 9
Co. 37; Carter v. Crawley, T. Raym. 496; Marriott v. Marriott,
Gilb. Eq. Rep. 203; Manning v. Napp, 1 Salk, 37; 2 Inst. 397; 2
Blac. Com. 494; 13 Ed. 1 c. 19; Kilty Rep. 144. But the bishops
who had been so long in the habit of appropriating all the goods of
intestates, found within their respective districts, to their own
uses, were permitted to re tain the right of granting administration
of all such effects; and, therefore, to secure to themselves their
fees and perquisites for so doing, they refused to admit the
validity of an administration granted any where beyond their own
peculiar jurisdiction. Middleton v. Crofts, 2 Atk. 659; Roberson
Succession, 250, 251. And following out the same rule, the Courts
of law and equity of England, held that they could not take notice
of any letters of administration granted in a foreign country, with-
out intimating, that they refused * to do so, in order to
498 hold the property of the intestate within reach, as a means
of satisfying his English creditors and next of kin; or if there were
no creditors, or next of kin, as a means of securing it for the
benefit of the State to whom, in such case, it properly belonged.
Daniel v. Luker, Dyer, 305; Jauncey v. Sealey, 1 Vern. 397; Tourton
v. Flower, 3 P. Will. 370; Atkins v. Smith, 2 Atk. 63; Thorne v.
Watkins, 2 Vets. 36.

But latterly, in England as well as in this country, a more en-
larged and just view has been taken of this matter; and it has
been held, that as the State must have a right to regulate that
which it protects, and is bound in duty to see its own citizens
satisfied before it suffers the property of their debtor to be with-
drawn from its jurisdiction, no foreign administration shall be
recognized here. And that the administration of all deceased
persons' estates must be taken out here by a citizen of the United
States, 1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 4 and 5, in order that there may be
some person here responsible to our own citizen creditors, legatees,
and distributees of the deceased, to the full value of his effects
found here: and also, that after the debts have been paid-, if there
be no next of kin, that the surplus be paid to the State, or to the
public schools here, to whom, in such cases, it properly belongs; or
according to the law of the deceased's last domicil. Bempde v.
Johnstone, 3 Ves, 198; Somerville v. Lord Somerville, 5 Ves. 750;
In the Goods of Beggia, 2 Eccle. Rep. 126; Holmes v. Remsen, 20
John. Rep. 265; Graeme v. Harris, 1 Dall. 456; McCullough v.
Young, 1 Bin. 63; Desesbats v. Berquier, 1 Bin. 336, 349, note;
Anonymous, 1 Hayw. 355; Admr. of Butts v. Price, 1 Cam. & Norw.
68; Harrison v. Sterry, 5 Craw. 289; Smith v. The Union Bank of
Georgetown, 5 Peters, 518; Glenn v. Smith, 2 G. & J. 493; Charlotte
Hall School v. Grecnwell, 4 G. & J. 408; Thomas v. Visitors of
Frederick County School, 1 G. & J. 370.