There are two grounds upon which tbe motion for removal is based:
1. That tbe plaintiff bas no right to bring its action in tbe county of Anson simply because it bad property in said county at tbe time of tbe commencement of tbe action, and that the location of its principal office in North Carolina is at Wadesboro in said county, and that tbe agent upon whom process may be served resides there. It is unnecessary to pass upon tbis question, as in our opinion tbe cause was properly removable upon tbe second ground, namely, that tbe action must be brought in tbe county where tbe executrix-took out letters testamentary.
It is well settled in tbis State that an administrator or executor must be sued in tbe county in which be took out letters of administration or letters testamentary, provided be, or any one of bis sureties, lives in that county, whether be is sued on bis bond or simply as administrator or executor. Stanley v. Mason, 69 N. C., 1; Clark’s Code, sec. 193, and cases cited in the-notes. It doesn’t appear in tbe complaint exactly what tbe cause of action against tbe executrix is. Tbe presumption is, therefore, that it relates to and seeks to charge tbe estate of her testator. It nowhere appears that tbe cause of action of tbe plaintiff relates exclusively to tbe execution of a trust committed to tbe executor by tbe will. In tbis latter case tbe action would be more in tbe nature of one seeking to charge tbe executor personally for tbe conduct and management of tbe trust. Roberts v. Connor, 125 N. C., 45.
Upon tbe face of tbe complaint, and tbe facts found by bis Honor, we think tbe cause was properly removed to tbe county of Moore.
Affirmed.