CORRIE'S CASE. 507

It must be recollected, however, that although there is an ob-
vious propriety in recognizing the appointment of a guardian so
made, under the law of one in every other state; yet, that
when this court is called upon, in respect of any property found
here, belonging to an infant foreigner, to appoint a guardian for
him, for the purpose of having it taken care of, no one can be
appointed who is not a resident within its jurisdiction, so as to be
held responsible, and subject to its control; because no state can
extend its process, or give efficacy to its judicial power, or its laws
beyond its own jurisdiction, (u) And so too, where an infant has
been improperly, or illegally removed into a foreign country, there,
from necessity, the guardian here must be authorized to remit, or
have applied, as well as circumstances will admit, the annual
income of his estate for his maintenance and education, (w)

But it is believed, that there is no well considered English adju-
dication, by which it has been determined, in opposition to the
rule laid down by the most eminent writers on public law, that the
appointment of a guardian to a foreign infant, under the law of his
domicil, must be recognized and allowed every where else.

In the case under consideration, this court is called upon to ap-
point a guardian to several male and female infants by their father
and natural guardian; for whom, even if they had no natural guar-
dian, it is at least questionable, whether any of the Orphans Courts
could appoint a guardian; because the lands of these infants do
not lie any where within this state; and because no administration
could be granted here of the personal property, lying within the
British dominions, which has been bequeathed to them, by one
who died abroad, who was not domiciled within this state, and who
left no property here. Their case is, in these respects, peculiar.
But being citizens of Maryland, it is the duty of this state to pro-
tect their interests; and the discharge of that duty, by virtue of
the general jurisdiction with which he has been clothed in such
cases, devolves upon the Chancellor. According to the principles
of equity by which this court is governed, where property has
been in any way acquired by an infant, whose parents are living,
it may, if necessary, provide for its preservation, either indepen-
dently of such natural guardian, or by compelling him to give

(w) Vattel, b. 2, c. 7, s. 84; Ex parte Ord. 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 44; Logan v. Fair-
lee, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. W.—(w) Roach v. Garvan, 1 Ves. 158; Stephens v. James,
7 Cond. Cha. Rep. 197.