A grant of letters which includes two estates under one administration would be irregular and objectionable, but it has been held not to be void ; Grande v. Herrera, 15 Tex. 533; the letters should be signed by the judge or other probate officer ; Succes sion of Carlon, 26 La. Ann. 329; Matthews v. Joyce, 85 N. C. 258; and they are not void though the sea] of the court is affixed in the wrong place ; Sharp v. Dye, 64 Cal. 9, 27 Pac. 789.
Letters testamentary and of administration are, according to their terms and extent, con clusive as to personal property while they re main unrevoked. They cannot be questioned in a court of law or of equity, and cannot be impeached, even by evidence of fraud or for gery. Proof that the testator was insane, or that the will was forged, is inadmissible ; 12 Ves. 298; Broderick's Will, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 503, 22 L. Ed. 599 ; Hall v. Woodman, 49 N. H, 295 ; Appeal of Hegarty, 75 Pa. 503 ; In habitants of Dublin v. Chadbourn, 16 Mass. 433; Jackson v. Le Grange ; 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 386, 10 Am. Dec. 237 ; Irwin v. Scriber, 18 Cal. 499 ; Carroll v. Carroll, 60 N. Y. 123, 19 Am. Rep. 144 ; Moore's Estate v. Moore, 33 Neb. 509, 50 N. W. 443 ; O'Connor v. Hug gins, 113 N. Y. 511, 21 N. E. 184; Robinson v. Epping, 24 Fla. 237, 4 South. 812. But if the nature of the plea raise the issue, it may be shown that the court granting the supposed letters had no jurisdiction, and that its ac tion is therefore a nullity ; 3 Term 130 ; see Knox v. Nobel, 77 Hun 230, 28 N. Y. Supp. 355 ; or that the seal attached to the sup posed probate has been forged, or that the letters have been revoked, or that the testa tor is alive ; In re Huff's Estate, 15 S. & R. (Pa.) 42 ; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cra. (U. S.) 9, 3 L. Ed. 471; Jochumsen v. Bank, 3 Allen (Mass.) 87 ; Duncan v. Stewart, 25 Ala. 408, 60 Am. Dec. 527 ; Harwood v. Wylie, 70 Tex. 538, 7 S. W. 789. Where an executor quali fied and acted for many years under his ap pointment, he will not be allowed to dispute the recitation in his appointment that cita tion to the heirs was issued and served ; In re Moore, 95 Cal. 34, 30 Pac. 106.
Though the probate court has exclusive ju risdiction of the grant of letters, yet where a legacy has been obtained by fraud, or the probate has been procured by fraud on the next of kin, a court of equity would bold the legatee or wrong-doer as bound by a trust for the party injured ; Wms. Ex. 552. While a court of equity cannot remove an executor ; Mannhardt v. Staats Zeitung Co., 90 Ill. App. 315 ; it may restrain him from acting, though such restraint will incidentally prevent him from performing his duties as executor; Bent ley v. Dixon, 60 N. J. Eq. 353, 46 Atl. 689 ; and even take the estate out of his hands and place it in the custody of a receiver ; Bolles v. Bolles, 44 N. J. Eq. 385, 14 AU. 593.
Letters may be revoked by the court which made the grant, or on appeal to a higher tri bunal, reversing the decision by which they were granted. Special or limited administra tion will be revoked on the occasion ceasing which called for the grant. An executor or administrator will be removed when the let ters were obtained improperly; Wms. Ex. 571.
Of their effect in a state other than that in which legal proceedings were instituted.
In view of the rule of the civil law, that personalia sequuntur personam, certain ef fect has been given by the comity of nations to a foreign probate granted at the place of the domicil of the deceased, in respect to the personal assets in other states. At common law, the Lew loci rei sits; governs as to real estate, and the foreign probate has no va lidity; but as to personalty the law of the domicil governs both as to testacy and intes tacy. It is customary, therefore, on a due
exemplification of the probate granted at the place of domicil, to admit the will to pro bate, and issue letters testamentary, without requiring original or further proof.
A foreign probate at the plaCe of domicil has in itself no force or effect beyond the ju risdiction in which it was granted, but on its production fresh probate will be granted thereon in all other jurisdictions where assets are found. This is the general rule, but is liable to be varied by statute, and is so varied in some of the states of the United States.
Letters testamentary or of administration confer no power beyond the limits of the state in which they are granted, and do not authorize the person to whom they are is sued to maintain any suit in the state or federal courts in any other state ; Johnson v. Powers, 139 U. S. 156, 11 Sup. Ct. 525, 35 L. Ed. 112 ; Wilkins v. Ellett, 108 U. S. 256, 2 Sup. Ct. 641, 27 L. Ed. 718 ; the executor or administrator has therefore, as such, no right of control over property in another state or country ; Mansfield v. Turpin, 32 Ga. 260; Upton v. Adam's Ex'rs, 27 Ind. 432 ; Wood v. Gold, 4 McLean 577 ; Fed. Cas. No. 17, 947 ; Lewis v. McMillen, 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 431; Carmichael v. Ray, 40 N. C. 365; he cannot interfere with assets, collect or discharge debts, control lands, sue or be sued ; Schoul. Ex. & Ad. § 173. The principle is, that a grant of power to administer the estate of a decedent operates only as of right within the jurisdiction which grants the letters, and in order that a foreign representative may ex ercise any such function he must be clothed with authority from the jurisdiction into which he comes, and conform to the require ments imposed by local law ; Moore v. Fields, 42 Pa. 467 ; Beckham v. Wittkowski, 64 N. C. 464 ; Price v. Morris, 5 McLean, 4, Fed. Cas. No. 11,414 ; Bell's Adm'r v. Nichols, 38 Ala. 678 ; Graveley v. Graveley, 25 S. C. 1, 60 Am. Rep. 478; Laurence v. Nelson, 143 U. S. 215, 12 Sup. Ct. 440, 36 L. Ed. 130 ; Duchesse d'Auxy v. Porter, 41 Fed. 68 ; Reynolds v. McMullen, 55 Mich. 568, 22 N. W. 41, 5.4 Am. Rep. 386. In most, probably all, of the states there is statutory provision, either for the grant of ancillary letters for authorizing and regulating suits by foreign executors and administrators. In many of them these of ficers, properly qualified abroad, are permit ted to sue for and recover local assets with out other qualification, within the new ju risdiction, than putting on record their au thority as conferred by the home jurisdiction, and such authority must be strictly followed. In many of the states there is authority to sue and defend without ancillary administra tion; Hayes v. Pratt, 147 U. S. 557, 13 Sup. Ct. 503, 37 L. Ed. 279; Banta v. Moore, 15 N. J. Eq. 97 ; Marrett v. Babb's Ex'r, 91 Ky. 88, 15 S. W. 4 ; Lewis v. Adams, 70 Cal. 403, 11 Pac. 833, 59 Am. Rep. 423 ; Tyer v. Melling Co., 32 S. C. 598, 10 S. E. 1067 ; and this right to sue has been extended to a foreign corpo ration duly authorized to act in its own ju risdiction ; Deringer's Adm'r v. Deringer's Adm'r, 5 Houst. (Del.) 416, 1 Am. St. Rep. 150 ; in some statutes there is express au thority to defend suits ; Moss v. Rowland, 3 Bush (Ky.) 505 ; but it has been held that statutory authority to sue does not imply capacity to be sued; Jones v. Lamar, 77 Ga.