3 Ohio St. 500, to effect that proceedings of Court of Common Pleas not to be regarded as invalid in collateral proceeding for mere failure to show all jurisdictional facts; Thompson v. Lyle, 3 Watts & S. 168, holding it error for State court in collateral proceeding to regard proceedings of District Court as void; Supervisors v. Le Clerc, 3 Pinn. 327, holding that as County Courts were limited in their jurisdiction, the record must show that they acted within their powers; Williamson's Case, 26 Pa. St. 23, 67 Am. Dec. 386, holding State Supreme Court could not review judgment of District Court on application for habeas corpus; Vincent v. Davidson, 1 Kan. App. 612, 42 Pac. 392, holding judgment of an inferior court could not be questioned or set aside in a collateral proceeding where record showed jurisdiction; dissenting opinion in McNutt v. Bland, 2 How. 22, 25, 11 L. Ed. 164, 165, arguing as to Federal jurisdiction for diverse citizenship. Modified in Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 U. S. 675, 33 L. Ed. 1057, 10 Sup. Ct. 646, holding that judgment is void and may be collaterally attacked where party against whom rendered was never before the court; Werz v. Werz, 11 Mo. App. 35, holding that the presumption in favor of judg ments of superior courts is confined to proceedings according to course of common law; Morse v. Presby, 25 N. H. 301, to effect that decree of District Court in bankruptcy was liable to collateral attack, its powers in such cases being special; In re Booth, 3 Wis. 180, holding judgment of District Court void where record affirmatively showed it to have acted without jurisdiction. Effect of inadvertent assumption of jurisdiction by appellate court. The inferior courts of the United States are courts of limited jurisdiction. Approved in In re Columbia Real Estate Co., 101 Fed. 970, holding in bankruptcy proceedings in District Court, all facts necessary to give court jurisdiction need not appear on face of record; United States v. Ta-wanga-ca, Hempst. 305, Fed. Cas. 16,435, applying the rule in holding District Court for Arkansas could not take cognizance of crime committed outside of the district; United States v. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Wood. & M. 438, Fed. Cas. 15,867, denying Circuit Court's power to punish a nuisance in maintaining bridge over navigable waters, in absence of authority from Congress. Law of place where land is situated governs as to the title and disposition of real property. Approved in Coney Island v. McIntyre-Paxton Co., 200 Fed. 906, 119 C. C. A. 197, holding that although contract was not deed, mortgage or lease under laws of Ohio, it was contract and valid; Southern Pac. Co. v. Western Pac. Ry. Co., 144 Fed. 179, construing Oakland waterfront grant; Kane v. Luckman, 131 Fed. 618, applying rule in suit for specific performance of contract to exchange cows for land; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. South ern Ry. Co., 122 Fed. 160, holding as under State law, action of eminent domain is not triable before a jury, on removal to Federal court jury will be denied; Deck v. Whitman, 96 Fed. 884, holding in suit to foreclose mortgage in Federal court the State statutes for enforcement of mortgage contract will be followed; Crossett Lumber Co. v. Files, 104 Ark. 602, 149 S. W. 909, holding in case of one omitting mention of child in will, descent of his realty governed by laws of State where situated; Pritchard v. Henderson, 2 Penne. (Del.) 558, 47 Atl. 377, holding probate proceedings in one State with respect to will devising land in another State, are not conclusive in latter State; Keane v. Chamberlain, 14 App. D. C. 106, holding that operation of deed of assignment as conveyance of land depends upon law of State where land is situated; Richmond etc. R. Co. v. Gorman, 7 App. D. C. 107, holding that grant of letters in probate matter not subject to collateral attack; Chidsey v. Brookes, 130 Ga. 220, 14 Ann. Cas. 975, 60 S. E. 530, holding devisee of land in Georgia cannot maintain action in regard to such land until will is probated in that State; Peet v. Peet, 229 Ill. 350, 11 Ann. Cas. 492, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 785, 82 N. E. 378, and Readman v. Ferguson, 13 App. D. C. 71, both holding that validity of will disposing of real estate is to be determined by law of State where land is situate; Catholic University v. Boyd, 227 Ill. 293, 81 N. E. 366, holding that deed from heirs, recorded before authenticated copy of will and its probate in sister State passes title to land in Illinois; Harrison v. Weatherby, 180 Ill. 435, 437, 54 N. E. 240, holding under Ill. 3 Starr. & C. Ann. Stats. (2d ed.), 4040, § 9, providing that authenticated copy of probate of will proven under the laws of any State shall pass title in Illinois, a will certified by Governor instead of judge will not pass title; Donaldson v. State, 182 Ind. 627, 101 N. E. 490, nonresident alien could not transmit by descent title to land owned by him in Indiana; Thompson v. Parnell, 81 Kan. 133, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 658, 105 Pac. 507, holding that will executed abroad but executed and attested in accordance with law of Kansas where land was situated, was entitled to probate in that State; Succession of Hasling, 114 La. 296, 38 South. 174, validity of will made in Louisiana by citizen thereof bequeathing realty situated in Mississippi is governed by laws of latter; Barnes v. Gunter, 111 Minn. 395, 127 N. W. 400, holding that where foreign will was never probated in State where land was situated, deed of land by heirs conveyed title, notwithstanding probate of will in sister State; Fenderson v. Missouri Tie etc. Co., 104 Mo. App. 295, 78 S. W. 820, duly authenticated record of foreign will affords no presumption that it was duly proved, so as to dispense with proof of such facts in support of title to land depending thereon; Higgins v. Vandeveer, 85 Neb. 96, 122 N. W. 846, holding that probate courts of Nebraska have no authority over questions of succession to title of realty situated in sister State; Muck v. Hitchcock, 212 N. Y. 289, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 566, 106 N. E. 77, holding that where foreign corporation acquired land in New York, it was not required to obtain permission to sell as required by New York corporations; Taylor v. Benham, 5 How. 273, 12 L. Ed. 149, holding that necessity for recording will, directing lands to be sold by executor, depends upon law of State where lands lie; United States v. Fox, 94 U. S. 320, 24 L. Ed. 193, holding that devise to United States of lands in New York was void under New York law, limiting devises of lands to natural persons and domestic corporations; Brine v. Insurance Co., 96 U. S. 635, 24 L. Ed. 861, holding State law giving mortgagor twelve months to redeem after sale under foreclosure, and his judgment creditor further time, governed the Federal courts; Robertson v. Pickrell, 109 U. S. 611, 27 L. Ed. 1050, 3 Sup. Ct. 409, to effect that probate of will of real estate in Virginia did not pass title to realty in the District of Columbia where not so provided by law of district; Schley v. Car Co., 120 U. S. 580, 30 L. Ed. 791, 7 Sup. Ct. 732, holding that transfer of realty to be legal must be according to the lex rei sitae; Langdon v. Sherwood, 124 U. S. 82, 31 L. Ed. 346, 8 Sup. Ct. 431, holding that State statute providing that judgment or decrce of court therein for conveyance of land, after certain time operated as conveyance, applied to Federal court decree; Arndt v. Griggs, 134 U. S. 321, 33 L. Ed. 920, 10 Sup. Ct. 559, where held that under Nebraska statutes court could acquire jurisdiction to quiet title to realty by constructive service against nonresident defendants; Magoun v. Bank, 170 U. S. 289, 42 L. Ed. 1041, 18. Sup. Ct. 596, sustaining Illinois inheritance tax law and right of State to make such taxes lien on realty; United States v. Bain, 3 Hughes, 606, Fed. Cas. 14,496, sustaining power of State legislature to authorize lease of space on river for dock, notwithstanding United States was thereby impeded in use of portion of its wharf; McClaskey v. Barr, 47 Fed. 169, holding that in order for will probated in another State to pass realty in Ohio, law relative to recording of same in county where land situated must be complied with; Billings v. Min. Co., 51 Fed. 344, 10 U. S. App. 1, holding laws of State in which mining property was situated determinative of right of aliens to inherit same from an alien, subject only to direct proceedings on part of United States under its laws to defeat their title; Magill v. Brown, 16 Fed. Cas. 447, in argument upon legality of certain devises and bequests for pious and charitable uses, to point that disposition of realty is subject to laws of State in which it is situated; In re Zug, 30 Fed. Cas. 948, 16 Bank. Reg. 280, 281, conforming to rule of State decisions, holding realty held in common by members of partnership not partnership assets; Leavens v. Butler, 8 Port. 401, holding decree of State court distributing real estate of decedent inoperative upon lands in other States; Goodman v. Winter, 64 Ala. 428, declaring necessity for conformity to law of State in which land is situated, improving devise of such land by one domiciled in another State; Apperson v. Bolton, 29 Ark. 427, to effect that widow's dower right determined by law of State in which land is situated; s. c., pp. 435, 437, declaring necessity for conformity to Arkansas law, requiring probate of foreign will before lands could be sold thereunder; Chappell v. Jardine, 51 Conn. 66, construing mortgage on real estate in New York according to New York law; Key v. Harlan, 52 Ga. 477, holding will executed and probated in Tennessee, according to law there, but which did not conform to Georgia laws, did not affect real estate in Georgia; Seaman v. Cook, 14 Ill. 506, determining nature and extent of interest in lands in New York according to New York law; Stoltz v. Doering, 112 Ill. 239, where right of illegitimate child to inherit real estate determined by lex rei sitae not by law of child's domicile; Lucas v. Tucker, 17 Ind. 45, declaring necessity for conformity. to local law relating to foreign wills before executor could sell same, or come within scope of statute curing defective executor's sales; Evansville Co. v. Winsor, 148 Ind. 688, 48 N. E. 594, holding right to contest foreign will devising realty in Indiana accrued as to such realty, upon presenting will for record under Indiana law; Doyle v. McGuire, 38 Iowa, 413, where a husband and wife in Pennsylvania had certain transactions involving title in realty in Iowa, law of Iowa determined their interests with reference to husband's attachment creditor; Acker v. Priest, 92 Iowa, 616, 61 N. W. 237, to effect that law of State where land, subject of an alleged trust, lies, determines question whether such trust was in fact created; Sneed v. Ewing, 5 J. J. Marsh. 465, 22 Am. Dec. 47, holding probate of foreign will in Indiana not effectual as to realty in Kentucky; dissenting opinion in Scott v. Key, 11 La. Ann. 239, arguing against right of one to inherit realty in Louisiana, who, born out of wedlock in Arkansas, was legitimated by act of legislature of that State; Osborn v. Adams, 18 Pick. 247, where citizen of Connecticut, under statute of that State, assigned for benefit of his creditors, land in Massachusetts did not pass thereby; Crusoe v. Butler, 36 Miss. 167, holding record of probate in another State of will devising lands in Mississippi not sufficient evidence to establish the will; s. c., p. 172, to effect that probate in Mississippi of foreign will established right of executor to sell lands there under power conferred by the will; Cabanne v. Skinker, 56 Mo. 367, to effect that probate of will not being effectual as to real estate in another State, neither executor thereunder nor his sureties were liable as such for such estate; Keith v. Keith, 97 Mo. 228, 10 S. W. 599, holding a foreign will executed according to laws of Missouri, but not recorded there, not notice to one who loaned money on land in Missouri, which was devised thereby; Emmons v. Gordon, 140 Mo. 499, 500, 62 Am. St. Rep. 740, 741, 41 S. W. 1001, where held that executor and sureties not liable on his bond for sale of realty in another State not in compliance with the laws thereof; Eyre v. Stover, 37 N. H. 121, holding testator domiciled in another State could not deprive his posthumous child of the right to inherit his realty in New Hampshire by omitting to provide for him in his will; Nelson v. Potter, 50°N. J. L. 326, 15 Atl. 376, holding will executed and probated in California and recorded in New Jersey not effectual to devise lands in latter State if not executed according to law thereof; Bullock v. Bullock, 51 N. J. Eq. 446, 27 Atl. 436, where court refused to compel defendant to execute mortgage on lands in New Jersey in obedience to decree of a court of another State; Wills v. Cowper, 2 Ohio, 129, holding law of Virginia, under which administrator, with will annexed, possessed power of sale conferred upon execu tor by will, did not so extend his powers with reference to Ohio lands; In re Clayson's Will, 24 Or. 545, 34 Pac. 359, where held execution and probate of foreign will of lands to be effective in Oregon must have been according to Oregon law; La Selle v. Woolery, 14 Wash. 71, 53 Am. St. Rep. 857, 32 L. R. A. 75, 44 Pac. 115, restricting length to which court would go in enforcing rights acquired in another State. Reconciled in Oakey v. Corry, 10 La. Ann. 503, where Federal assignee in bankruptcy in Mississippi, under order of court, sold land in Louisiana. Distinguished in White v. Keller, 68 Fed. 801, 30 U. S. App. 275, which holds that devise of realty takes effect upon death of testator, though subsequent probate of unrecorded will does not affect title of innocent purchaser from the heir; Ross v. Ross, 129 Mass. 246, 37 Am. Rep. 322, in argument, to effect that child domiciled in and adopted according to law of another State is entitled to inherit; Vaughan v. Phebe, 1 Mart. & Y. 24, 17 Am. Dec. 779, to point that right to freedom of one until recently domiciled in another State not determined by law of that State. Probate of foreign wills. Note, 113 Am. St. Rep. 213. Conclusiveness in domestic courts of foreign will duly probated abroad. Note, 9 Ann. Cas. 423. Conclusiveness of foreign probate as affecting realty. Note, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 618. Effect of probate of will in other State. Note, 48 L. R. A. 133, 137, Conclusiveness of judgment of foreign country. Note, 20 L. R. A. 673. Note, 11 Ann. Cas. 498. realty. Note, L. R. A. Conflict of laws as to wills. Note, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 424. Miscellaneous. Cited in The Paquete Habana, 189 U. S. 465, 47 L. Ed. 904, 23 Sup. Ct. 594, holding decree may be entered against United States by prize court, for damages resulting from capture of vessel by navy; Kelly v. Moore, 22 App. D. C. 25, to point that when any of witnesses to will has died, proof of his signature is sufficient prima facie proof of attestation of will by him; Warner v. Brinton, 29 Fed. Cas. 234, to point that probate of a will is not evidence of a devise at common law, and holding will could be contested after probate; p. 235, to point that minutes of evidence taken on probate probably open to objection in action of ejectment; Crapster v. Griffith, 2 Bland Ch. 24. Cited erroneously in Wilson v. Pierce, 30 Fed. Cas. 153. 10 Wheat. 204-245, 6 L. Ed. 303, WRIGHT v. DENN. Devisee takes an estate for life only, where there are no words of limitation to the devise, and no contrary intention plainly appears. |