Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/546

 584 FEDERAL MiPORTEB. �the difficulty ûf debiding what was thë last residence of a de- eeased'person, for the purpose of gràntingàdmimô'tratidiiupon his estate, and what useleàs' confiieion, litigatiôn, and loss woiild foflow if the judginent- oi the couhty jndge upon such a queëfeion was open to attack côliaterally, ^çyhenever and ■wherever any right of action or property arising out of or depending upon the colrrectness of such judgment was con- tested or called in Question. �Withib the 70 days immediately prior to his death, Perkins was ik four counties oi the state. Already administration has been gtanted in two of them, upon applications made under the ad vice of learned sind eareful counsel ; and if I were called upon tb decide 6f -which county he was an ihhabitant, at or immediately before his death, I shoûld probably say noteitherof these, but' Marion county. So that if the rule ooritended foi? by the libellant Vere to prievail,and the gràht of administration be he-H Toid; in case it appeàrs to this court that it was riot made'in the proper couuty, the conclu- sion might bë' that • neither Davis nor Holmes is the legal administi'atôr of the deceased. But I do not think the resi- dence of the" deceased is an bpen question in this court. In the exercise ôf''it8 general jurisdictiûn'ldyer the estates of deceased persons, the county court of Multnomah county, in the àppointment of Davis as administratoT, decided that the deceased was an inhabitant of that cduntyat the time of his deàth, anid' this decision, except upon appeal, is coriclusive of' the' Question. ' �The grahtof administration to the libellalrit having been màde tipcfe an esfate wlrfch *i^às not vaûant, but already vested in the administra toi* àppOinted'by the court of Mult- nomah county, it fbllows thalt such grant is void, and the pleà of ne img'ues'administrator is sustaihed. This conclusion also deriVôs. support from the analogies of the foliowing cases rfelatirig to the question 'of jurisdiction' in probate courts and matterS': Grigndn v, Asibtj^ H.O-W. 385; Florentine Y.Barion, 2 Wall. 210; Comstockt.&rtiiuford, 3 Wall. 402; Canjolle v. Fm-ifii 18 Wall.'e69'; Broderick's WiU,21 Wàll. 509; Mohr ����