¶1It is not necessary to examine the question whether the property in controversy in this case was or was not rightfully retained by the respondents as a part of the estate belonging to the decedent. For if it belonged to the appellant, his proper remedy was in a different forum. For the surrogate has no jurisdiction, upon a summary application to him, to compel the administrators to deliver over property to the owner thereof, which property has been taken possession of by them as a part of the estate to be administered by them; although their claim to such property is wholly unfounded, or is merely colorable.
¶2Order appealed from affirmed with costs.