CORRIE'S CASE.—2 BLAND. 483

explained. Whence, it is clear, that, under the law of nations,
the free removal of persons and of property, from one State to
another, can only be restrained, upon the ground of a duty of the
State to itself, or to its own citizens; and that, apart from those
restrictions, no infant or adult can be in any way hindered or em-
barrassed in withdrawing his property from any other State into
that of which he is a resident citizen, or within which he has his
domicil.

It is universally admitted. That immovable property of all de-
scriptions, must be regulated by the law of the State within which
it is situated. But a foreigner, or a non-resident, who may be
permitted to hold such property, must, as a necessary consequence
of that permission, be allowed to collect and have remitted to him.
its rents and profits. A living adult owner may. by a sufficiently
authenticated power, cause the rents and profits of his real estate,
or the whole of his personal estate to be transmitted to him any
where beyond the jurisdiction of the State. And by a comity,
now prevalent among all civilized nations, founded on this conces-
sion to living owners, qualified by a proper regard to itself and
its citizens, an administration granted under the law of the de-
ceased's domieil, is so far recognized by every other nation as to
be considered as the administration in chief, to which the admin-
istration taken out in the State where the property is found, is only
auxiliary; and to which administration in chief, the surplus must
be handed over for the purpose of distribution. And so, too,
marriage, if valid where solemnized, being recognized as valid
every where, vests in tlte husband full authority to cause his wife's
personal property to be transferred to any place he may think
proper.

An infant is incompetent, by reason of his infancy, to clothe any
one with a power to dispose of his property; and yet his right to
have it removed, during his infancy, is as perfect; and the benefit
of removal may be, and often is, much greater to him than to an
adult owner. Hence, it is laid down, that it belongs to the domes-
tic Judge to appoint a guardian to an infant; and that the law of
natious, which has an eye to the common advantage and the har-
mony of States, requires the appointment of such a guardian to
be recognized as valid in all other countries in which the infant

*may have any concerns. Vattel, b. 2, c. 7, s. 85; Kames'
Pri, Eq. b. 3, c. 8 s. 1; Ex parte Otto Lewis. 1 Fes. 297. An 506
administration granted abroad, and the assignees or trustees ap-
pointed under the bankrupt or insolvent laws of another State, are
not allowed to have any authority here, in order that the interests
of the State and of its citizens, may be protected. But, no such
reason can exist for refusing to recognize the appointment of a
guardian of a foreign infant, made under the laws of the State to
which he belongs. An infant being incompetent to contract, or to