CORRIE'S CASE. 400

chief, while those granted in other countries of the effects of the
deceased found there, are considered as merely auxiliary 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, (i)

This reference to the last actual domicil of the deceased for the
rules by which his personal estate 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 moveables, it is always presumed to refer to the law of his
then domicil; and upon that presumption, without any thing 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. (j)

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, (k) And moreover, that marriage, being a con-
tract recognized by the law of nations, is, with few exceptions,
valid every where if binding where it was made. (I) And conse-
quently, that all the property of the wife vests in the husband, or
becomes subject to his control during, and in consequence of the

(i) Pipon v. Pipon, Amb. 26; Thorne v. Watkins, 2 Ves. 36; Somerville v.
Lord Somerville, 5 Ves. 750; Polinger v. Wightman, 3 Meriv. 68; Lowe v. Far-
lie, 2 Mad. Rep. 101; Munroe v. Douglas, 5 Mad. 380; Logan v. Fairlie, 1 Cond.
Cha. Rep. 459; The Harmony, 2 Rob. Adm. Rep. 322; La Virginie, 5 Rob. Adm.
Rep. 98; Smith v. The Union Bank of Georgetown, 5 Peters, 518; De Sobry v.
De Laistre, 2 H. & J. 224.—( j) Wallis v. Brightwell, 2 P. Will. 88; Brodie v.
Barry, 2 Ves. & Bea. 130; Anstruther v. Chalmer, 2 Cond. Cha. Rep. 285; Curl-
ing v. Thornton, 2 Eccle. Rep. 197; Larpent v. Lindry, 3 Eccle. Rep. 166; In the
Goods of Reid, 3 Eccle. Rep. 207; In the Goods of Maraver, 3 Eccle. Rep. 218 ;
Armstrong v. Lear, 12 Wheat. 169; Desesbats v. Berquier, 1 Bin. 336; Burnley v.
Duke, 1 Rand. 108 j De Sobry t?. De Laistre, 2 H. & J. 195; Vattel, b. 2, ch. 8, s.
111.— (k) Roberdeau v. Rous, 1 Atk. 544; Brodie v. Barry, 2 Ves. & Bea. 131;
Elliott v. Lord Minto, 6 Mad. 16; The United States v. Crosby, 7 Cran. 115; Kerr
». Moan, 9 Wheat. 565; Binney's Case, ante 145.—(I) Roach v. Garvan, I Ves.
158; The King v. Brarapton, 10 East. 282; Lautour v. Teesdale, 4 Com. Law Rep.
299; Ruding v. Smith, 4 Eccle. Rep. 551; Scrimshire v. Scrimshire, 4 Eccle.
Rep. 562; Harford v. Morris, 4 Eccle. Rep. 575; Middleton v. Janverin, 4 Eccle.
Rep. 582.

*