CORRIE'S CASE.—2 BLAND. 477

It having been universally admitted, not indeed as a binding-
rale of international law, but as a matter of general comity among
civilized nations, that personal property follows the domicil of its
owner; and that the succession to it must be regulated, on his
death intestate, by the law of that domicil and as the administra-
tion of such, property looks, in the first place, to the payment of
all the debts of the deceased, and then to a distribution among
those entitled to succeed to it, according to the law of the de-
ceased's domicil. it most commonly happens, that none but an
administration under that law can, with facility, if at all, embrace
both those objects. Consequently, the administration of the de-
ceased's domicil is, every where, regarded as the administration in
*chief, while those granted in other countries of the effects of
the deceased found there, are considered as merely auxiliary 499
to such administration in chief. So that, for the benefit of creditors,
and the public, the law of the State where the personal property is
found gives the rule; although as regards a distribution among the
next of kin of the deceased, the law of his domicil is allowed to
govern. Pipon v. Pipon, Amb. 26; Thorne v. Watkins, 2 Ves. 36;
Somerrille v. Lord Somerville, 5 Ves. 750; Potinger v. Wightman,
3 Meriv, 68; Lowe v. Farlie, 2 Mad. Rep. 101; Monroe v. Douglas,
5 Mad. 380; Logon v. Fairlie, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 459; The Harmony,
2 Rob. Adm. Rep. -322; La Virginie, 5 Rob. A dm. Rep. 98; Smith v.
The Union Bank of Georgetown, 5 Peters, 518; De Sobry v. De
Laistre, 2 H. & J. 224.

This reference to the last actual domicil of the deceased for the
rules by which his personal esiafe is to be disposed of is, however,
most commonly made in cases of absolute intestacy; and so too
in cases where the deceased may have made a will disposing of
his movables, it is always presumed to refer to the law of his
then domicil; and upon that presumption, without anything ap-
pearing to the contrary, it is deemed valid, or otherwise according
to that law, and in pursuance thereof is executed, or set aside;
recollecting, however, that no testamentary act or disposition can
be allowed to contravene any known rule of our own law. Wallis
v. Brightwell, 2 P. Will. 88; Brodie v. Barry, 2 Ves. & Em. 130;
Anstruther v. Chalmer, 2 Cond. Cha. Rep. 285; Curling v. Thorn-
ton, 2 Eccle. Rep. 197; Larpent v. Lindry, 3 Ecde. Rep. 166; In the
Goods of Reid, 3 Eccle. Rep. 207; In the Goods of Maraver, 3
Eccle. Rep. 218; Arm-strong v. Lear, 12 Wheat. 169; Denesbats v.
Berquier, 1 Bin. 336; Burnley v. Duke, 1 Rand. 108; De Sobry v.
De Laistre, 2 H. & J. 105; Vattcl, b. 2, ch. 8, s. 111.

But it must.be always borne in mind, that according to all law
real estate, immovables, or territorial property, considered as a part
of the habitation of the nation is, in all cases, governed entirely,
and in all respects, by the law of the State under whose jurisdic-
tion it is situated. Roberdeau v. Rons, I Atk. 544; Brodie v. Barry,