SCOFIELD V. ADRIANCE. "where letters have been revoked by a decree of the Surrogate's court, the successor of the executor, administrator or guardian, whose letters are so revoked, may maintain an action upon his predecessor's official bond, etc." The statute is silent as to the necessity of preliminarily obtaining the Surrogate's leave, and purposely so, it would seem; for the very next section (§ 2609) declares that, if no successor to the removed officer has been appointed, such leave must be procured before a "person aggrieved" may maintain an action upon such officer's bond. The foregoing are believed to be all the existing provisions of law, upon the subject under discussion, and serve to show that the case at bar is one wherewith the Surrogate has no concern. After the death of one holding testamentary letters, or letters of administration, if there has been issued against him no execution which has been returned wholly or partly unsatisfied, and if he has not failed to obey some lawful order or decree of the Surrogate, the prosecution of his bond is a matter quite outside of that officer's jurisdiction. From the foregoing considerations, it is equally apparent that I could not grant this petition if I would, and that I ought not to do so if I could. For both these reasons it must, therefore, be denied. Ordered accordingly. DUFFY V. SMITH. NEW YORK COUNTY.-HON. D. G. ROLLINS, SURROGATE.-April, 1883. DUFFY V. SMITH. In the matter of the estate of WILLIAM E. DUFFY, deceased. The probate court of another state is not a court of competent jurisdiction to make a decree discharging administrators appointed by a Surrogate's court of this State from their obligation to account to the latter court for property of decedent received by them, and made subject, by the laws of this State, to the Surrogate's jurisdiction. Administrators appointed, by a court of another state, upon the estate of a resident thereof, after the grant of letters to them here, and after they had taken possession of property here, cannot be allowed to withdraw such property from this State, until they have accounted for it here, especially where the same has been vouched for in the petition for letters, and the inventory, filed here by them. Decedent died intestate in August, 1876, in Connecticut, where letters of administration upon his estate were issued, out of a Probate court, to M., in September of that year. In 1877, letters of administration upon his estate were issued by the Surrogate of New York county, to D. and K., upon D.'s affidavit that decedent left assets in that county. In 1878, M. was removed by the Connecticut court, and D. and K. were appointed in his stead. In 1881, D. and K. filed accounts with the Surrogate here, pursuant to an order obtained by one of the next of kin, showing $7,600 to have been collected and come to their hands in New York county. The account, being contested, was ordered to a reference, pending which the administrators were cited by the Connecticut court to appear before it, on July 3rd, 1882, and account, which they did. On July 6th, they filed their account there, showing a deficiency of over $10,000, and obtained a decree allowing the same, and awarding them and their counsel an allowance of $3,750. A copy of the citation was directed to be posted on a sign post and published in a town newspaper. The Connecticut accounting was not contested. On a motion, before the Surrogate here, to vacate the order of reference, and dismiss all proceedings, on the ground of want of jurisdiction, and of res adjudicata, Heid, that the Surrogate had authority, when he first assumed jurisdiction, to pass upon the administrators' accounts (Code Civ. Pro., § 2476, DUFFY V. SMITH. subd. 3; § 2735); that, independently of the features of the Connecticut decree, he was not divested of authority by the proceedings in that state; and that the motion must be denied. APPLICATION by James Duffy and William H. Kelly, administrators of decedent's estate, to dismiss the proceedings on their accounting; opposed by Mary Smith, a sister and heir-at-law of decedent, and others. The facts appear sufficiently in the opinion. JOHN M. MACKAY, WILLIAM FULLERTON and JOHN FLANAGAN, for administrators. GEORGE F. LANGBEIN, for Mary Smith. L. W. EMERSON, for next of kin. THE SURROGATE.-The decedent resided in the State of Connecticut, where he died intestate, in August, 1876. Letters of administration upon his estate were, in September, 1876, issued to one Dennis McQuillan, out of the Probate court of the district in which the decedent had died. McQuillan was superseded in 1878 by James Duffy and William H. Kelly, who, more than a year before, had been granted letters of administration by the Surrogate of this county. Such letters had been issued upon the application of James Duffy, who swore, in his petition, that the decedent "died possessed of personal property in the city of New York, not exceeding in value $6,000, or thereabouts." An inventory, afterward filed in the office of the Surrogate, and disclosing assets amounting to $6,000, contained, according to the affidavit of administrator Kelly, a true statement, as far as he knew, of all the personal property of the deceased in the State of New York. Upon DUFFY V. SMITH. citation at the instance of one of the next of kin, Mr. Kelly, in June, 1881, filed his account in this court. It thereby appeared, among other things, that the sum of $7,600 had been collected, and had come to his hands in the State of New York. To this account objections were interposed by nearly all of decedent's next of kin-as also to a similar account subsequently filed by administrator Duffy. By order of the Surrogate, these accounts and objections were submitted to a referee for hearing and deter. mination. While this reference was pending, in September, 1881, a stipulation was entered into before the referee, whereby it was, in effect, agreed that administrator Kelly should render an additional account, including all assets, from whatever source derived, which had at any time come into his possession or under his control. This stipulation was signed by the attorneys for the adult contestants, by the attorney for administrator Duffy, by the special guardian for infant objectors, and by administrator Kelly personally, who appended the following statement to an account which, in pursuance of such stipulation, was subsequently filed in October, 1881: "The reason for including the Connecticut estate in this account is because of my desire to be discharged upon this accounting, if legal, and to be relieved from any further accounting, here or in Connecticut." He charged himself at this time with: Amount of Connecticut inventory.. Amount of New York inventory.. $18,512 04 6,000 00 2,168 82 $26,680 86 He credited himself in all with... . . . . Leaving an apparent balance in his hands of....... 24,895 48 $1,785 38 DUFFY V. SMITH. The reference again proceeded. A large amount of testimony was taken, and in July, 1882, was submitted to the Surrogate, together with the report of the referee, to the effect that the administrators should be held accountable, in excess of the sums wherewith they charged themselves, with various amounts, aggregating about $11,000. Upon application by Mr. Kelly, who claimed that the reference had been brought to an unexpected close, so that he was deprived of opportunity to make full presentation of the evidence in his behalf, the matter was again submitted to the referee in November, 1882. After several sessions, during which little testimony was taken, counsel for administrator Duffy, in January 1883, procured from the Surrogate an order to show cause why the order of reference should not be vacated, and all proceedings in this court be dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction, and on the further ground that the accounts of the administrators had been settled and adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction in the state of Connecticut. Duffy's affidavit, upon which the order to show cause was based, alleged that, late in June, 1882, while the reference was pending here, he and his co-administrator were cited by the Probate court of Connecticut, from which they had obtained letters of administration, to appear at Portland in that State, on July 3, and to show cause why they should not there render an account of their doings; that they attended with counsel in pursuance of such citation, and that the pendency of proceedings before the Surrogate of this county was suggested as a sufficient ground for delay in accounting elsewhere; that the court would not heed the suggestion, but |