CORRIE'S CASE. 497

proceedings under the bankrupt or insolvent laws of a foreign
state, to give any right, or to affect the title to any property
belonging to the debtor, and found within this state, in any way
whatever, (b)

The law in relation to the administration of a deceased foreign
debtor's effects found here, is now settled upon the same general
principles, that of a duty which the state owes to its own citizens.

According to the ancient common law of England, upon the
death of any one intestate his personal estate devolved upon the
king, whose duty it was, as sovereign, and as parens patriae
to take care of, and have justice done to all his subjects; and
therefore, he caused the effects of the deceased to be placed in the
hands of some fit person, to be administered for the benefit of his
creditors and next of kin. After which, this public duty of the
sovereign was delegated by him to the clergy; who under the pre-
text of applying such estates to pious uses, upon the ground, that
there was a general principle of piety in the testator, (e) fraudu-
lently appropriated the whole to their own aggrandizement, leaving
the creditors of the deceased unpaid, and his next of kin destitute.
To prevent these fraudulent practices of the clergy of those times,
the parliament interposed and passed laws, in affirmance of the
ancient common law, requiring the bishops to appoint administra-
tors, in whose hands the personal estate of intestates, should be
placed, to be administered for the benefit of his creditors and next
of kin. (d) But the bishops who had been so long in the habit of
appropriating all the goods of intestates, found within their re-
spective districts, to their own uses, were permitted to retain 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, (e) 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, without intimating, that they refused

(6) Holmes ». Remsen, 20 John. Rep. 229; Milne v, Moreton, 6 Binney, 353;
Burk v. McClain, 1 H. & McH. 236; Wallace v. Patterson, 2 H. & McH. 463; Har-
rison v. Sterry, 5 Cran. 289; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 218; Brickwood v.
Miller, 3 Meriv. 280; Kames' Pri. Eq. b. 3, e. 8, s. 6.—(e) Moggridge v. Thack-
well, 7 Ves. 69.—(d) Hensloe's case, 9 Co. 37; Carter v. Crawley, T. Raym. 496;
Harriot v. Marriot, 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.—(e)—Middleton v. Crofts, 2 Atk.
659; Roberson Succession, 250, 251.