Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/545

 HOLMES V. OSECtÇJB? .,4lf CALIPORNIA ET. CO. §3@, �batea. < liis, hel4 void ipsofcicto^ because ,no, 4n^U4ryi isv jiecçp- sary tQ^,asçertaiii its iii:?9,li(Jity. But T^ilierp thft poupt bas jurisdialjioQ pf cases ejua^çm gmens, its judgiment, in.^ny case is ^ot.raerely yoid, because its invalidity cannot appç^ir with- out an inquky into the facts; an inquiry wliicb the^eourt itseU, must be presumed j;o haye made, and which ]s;ill npt, therefore, be permitted to be revived collatearauy." And «i. parallel dase, it seems to me, is this : The United States cir- cuit court bas. jurisdiction of ail civil cases in law andequity, of a certain value, arising betweencitizeus of different state,8j and if iq sucb a case it decides; that the parties are oitizens of diffeienli states, and, therefoijerit is authojr^zed to deij^rpjine the controv«fsy,l>etween them, its decision. in this r^espectis conclusive, except upon appeal. . ; r . �. The object to be accpmplisbed by mpans of giying exclur. siyç jurisdiction to the couiity courts to granifidpiinistratiQn. of estates, is to provide for; the due and public succession, tp, the ee^tates of ail deceased.pej;sopp,.an^ in j)ie,e;^erci§^'pf thjp, jurisdiction the jesi4enqç of tl\9 deoeas^ iB|mei:ely a njafiiter incidental, and .only of, importance in .ppoviding fpr what mfty; be supppsed tpbe the ord^rly and çouvejii^t ^jstributiop. of, the pp wer ai^ong, jilje several county courts \ pf JJbe state. . , ; ; �,The argumenji .^rawn û^om convenieuc,?! ^an^, praqtic^bility in favor pf j^pldingtbe jicidginent of a coijirt g^anting admin- istration pf. au estate tp.be, conclusive: as tp ther^^i^ence of the deceased, pxcept uppu. , appeal, is very suggesti^ye !g.nd ought to have much weight. Cases are continually arising in which it is difficult to say where the last rçsidence or in- habitancy of the deceased was. _ TÇbç facts upon whieh.the decision of the question turns are often so obscure, vague, and ambiguous or contradictory, that no tvo courts can hardly be expected to draw the same conclusion from them. And yet its decision is a mere matter of f orpi— rtelates only to the pror cedure — and involves no substantial right. Apart from the local convenience of parties it makesiio difference what county court of the state grants the administration. �The case under consideration is a striking illustration of ����