; 315 U.S. 343, 86 L.Ed. 885. As to respondents' efforts to proceedin North Carolina constituting an evasion of the lawsof this state: 176 S.C. 369, 180 S.E. 350; 28 Am. Jur., Sec. 212; 133 U.S. 107, 33 L.Ed. 538. As to trial in NorthCarolina not being adequate to rights of appellants: 176 S.C. 369, 180 S.E. 350. As to application of the doctrine ofestoppel: 176 S.C. 369, 180 S.E. 350; 28 Am. Jur., Sec. 215; 25 L.R.A., N.S., 272. As to why injunctive reliefshould have been granted: 57 A.L.R. 77; 115 A.L.R. 237; 6 A.L.R.2d 896; 28 Am. Jur. 397, Sec. 214. Asto the convenience of witnesses and ends of justice being bestserved by trial in South Carolina: 217 S.C. 16, 59 S.E.2d 344. As to trial in North Carolina, under its laws, beingunconscionably costly: 214 N.C. 361, 199 S.E. 290. Messrs. Wyche, Burgess Wofford, of Greenville, forRespondents, cite: As to appellants having no right to injunctiverelief: 13 S.C. 409. As to jurisdiction of Courts ofDomicile in determining validity of will: 97 S.E. 20 (N.C. ); 5 R.C.L. 1017, Sec. 104; 57 Am. Jur., Sec. 956; 57 Am. Jur., Sec. 766; 203 Ark. 763, 158 S.W.2d 655; 315 Mass. 636, 53 N.E.2d 673; 204 Mass. 394, 90 N.E. 552; 80 N.J. Eq. 471, 85 A. 266; 89 N.J. Eq. 525, 104 A. 646; 159 Mich. 474; 124 N.W. 514; 1 A. 24, 21 Vt. 1938, 119 A.L.R. 511; 223 N.Y. Sup. 777, 130 Misc. 499; 10 Pa. Distr. 332; 119 A.L.R. 511; Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws, Sec. 470, 470F. As to appellantsnot making out case sufficient to support application forinjunctive relief: 28 Am. Jur., Secs. 204, 207, 209, 214; 148 Ga. 609, 97 S.E. 673; 134 Conn. 486, 58 A.2d 698; 87 N.J. Eq. 185, 99 A. 109; 15 C.J. 1183; 21 C.J.S., Sec. 548; 21 C.J.S. 855; 178 So. 339 (La.); 115 A.L.R. 237; 126 Kan. 75, 271 P. 313; 228 Ala. 632, 115 So. 309; 25 A.L.R., N.S., 267, Anno.; 115 A.L.R. 237, Anno.; 6 A.L.R.2d 896, Anno.; 57 A.L.R. 79, Anno.
And as announcing the same principle, see the following cases: Miles v. Fogle, 4 Edw. Ch. (N.Y.) 559; In re Coburn's Will, 9 Misc. Rep. 437 [30 N.Y. Supp. 383]; Evansville I. C.S. Co. v. Winsor, 148 Ind. 682 [48 N.E. 592]; Van Wickle v. Van Wickle, 59 N.J. Eq. 317 [44 A. 877]; Ware v. Wisner, 50 Fed. 310; Kingsbury v. Burnside, 58 Ill. 310 [11 Am.Rep. 67]; Eyre v. Storer, 37 N.H. 115; In re Harwood, 172 N.Y. Supp. 296; Crandall v. Barker, 8 N.D. 263 [78 N.W. 347]; In re Witter's Estate, 15 N.Y. Supp. 133; Moultrie v. Hunt, 23 N.Y. 394; Despard v. Churchill, 53 N.Y. 192; Lowndes v. Cooch, 89 Md. 478 [40 L.R.A. 380, 39 A. 1045]; Lewis v. Corbin, 195 Mass. 520 [122 Am.St.Rep. 261, 81 N.E. 248]; Martin v. Stovall, 103 Tenn. 1 [48 L.R.A. 130, 52 S.W. 296]; McEwan v. Brown, 176 N.C. 249 [ 97 S.E. 20]."
And as announcing the same principle, see the following cases: Miles v. Fogle, 4 Edw. Ch. (N.Y.) 559; In re Coburn's Will, 9 Misc. Rep. 437 [30 N.Y. Supp. 383]; Evansville I. C. S. Co. v. Winsor, 148 Ind. 682 [48 N.E. 592]; Van Wickle v. Van Wickle, 59 N.J. Eq. 317 [44 A. 877]; Ware v. Wisner, 50 Fed. 310; Kingsbury v. Burnside, 58 Ill. 310 [11 Am. Rep. 67]; Eyre v. Storer, 37 N.H. 115; In re Harwood, 172 N.Y. Supp. 296; Crandall v. Barker, 8 N.D. 263 [78 N.W. 347]; In re Witter's Estate, 15 N.Y. Supp. 133; Moultrie v. Hunt, 23 N.Y. 394; Despard v. Churchill, 53 N.Y. 192; Lowndes v. Cooch, 89 Md. 478 [40 L. R. A. 380, 39 A. 1045]; Lewis v. Corbin, 195 Mass. 520 [122 Am. St. Rep. 261, 81 N.E. 248]; Martin v. Stovall, 103 Tenn. 1 [48 L. R. A. 130, 52 S.W. 296]; McEwan v. Brown, 176 N.C. 249, [ 97 S.E. 20]. [3] Appellants also urge that because of the so-called "full faith and credit" clause of the United States constitution (art.
48 N.C. App. at 125, 268 S.E.2d at 833-34. In reaching that result, the Court of Appeals relied upon the cases of In re Will of Chatman, 228 N.C. 246, 45 S.E.2d 356 (1947) and McEwan v. Brown, 176 N.C. 249, 97 S.E. 20 (1918). We believe such reliance to be misplaced.
There was, however, a forceful dissent by Furches, J., and the holding of the case was overruled in Spencer v. Spencer, supra. In re Bennett, 180 N.C. at 12, 103 S.E. at 920; McEwan v. Brown, 176 N.C. 249, 252, 97 S.E. 20, 21 (1918). In Spencer, an action to recover a portion of insurance proceeds, plaintiff relied on a letter the deceased his brother, had written to him which plaintiff contended was a codicil to his brother's previously executed will.
G.S. 31-27. It has no efficacy for any purpose in this state until probated here, but when probated here on the exemplified copy, it suffices to pass title to personalty and the right to enforce claims which testator could assert against citizens or properties in this state, even though not executed or proven as required by the laws of this state. McEwan v. Brown, 176 N.C. 249, 97 S.E. 20. This is true because personally as a general rule has its situs at the domicile of the owner, and a will valid in the state of his domicile transfers the title thereto irrespective of the physical location of the personal assets. Warlick v. Reynolds, 151 N.C. 606, 66 S.E. 657; Jones v. Layne, 144 N.C. 600; Hornthal v. Burwell, 109 N.C. 10; Grant v. Reese, 94 N.C. 720; Moye v. May, 43 N.C. 131; Williamson's Adm'r. v. Smart, 1 N.C. 355; 6 Bowe-Parker: Page on Wills, sec. 60.11; 11 Am. Jur. 476.
Vaughan v. Vaughan, 211 N.C. 354 (361), 190 S.E. 492; Likas v. Lackey, 186 N.C. 398, 119 S.E. 763. But we do not think this rule can help the appellant here, for the reason that Judge Pless in his judgment considered the appeal of the American Trust Company from the order of 7 July, 1947, and reversed the action of the Clerk, to the extent said order was in conflict with the Judge's affirmance of the order of 29 November, 1947. Since we think the court below ruled correctly on both appeals from the Clerk which he considered, it is unnecessary to determine the question whether, as contended by the appellees on this appeal, the evidence and findings of the Clerk were insufficient to support the probate in common form of the paper-writing dated 23 February, 1945, as a holographic will. G.S., 31-18; In re Bennett, 180 N.C. 5, 103 S.E. 917; McEwan v. Brown, 176 N.C. 249, 97 S.E. 20. The fact that the beneficiaries under the first will were not given notice of the probate of the paper-writing dated 23 February, 1945, affords no ground of complaint (In re Rowland, 202 N.C. 373, 162 S.E. 897; In re Chisman, 175 N.C. 420, 95 S.E. 769), but that the order was erroneously and improvidently entered, as herein pointed out, justified its revocation. After careful consideration of all the questions presented by the appeal of Lelia Wilson, we conclude that the judgment below in the respects of which she complains, should be upheld.
Then appears a caveat to the recordation of the exemplification of the will and the proceedings had in connection with its probate, the caveators alleging fraud in the procurement, both of the will and of its probate, and specifically averring want of jurisdiction in the South Carolina court to entertain the application for the probate of the will. It is clear from what was said in McEwan v. Brown, 176 N.C. 249, 97 S.E. 20, that the motion to dismiss the caveat was properly overruled in so far as it affects the real estate situate in New Hanover County. We are inclined to sustain the denial of the motion to dismiss as it affects the personal property in New Hanover County also, in view of the challenge to the jurisdiction of the South Carolina court to probate the will.
Jacobs v. Whitney, 205 Mass. 477, 480. New York Life Ins. Trust Co. v. Viele, 161 N.Y. 11, 19. McEwan v. Brown, 176 N.C. 249. Martin v. Stovall, 103 Tenn. 1. Am. Law Inst. Restatement: Conflict of Laws, § 306. Beale, Conflict of Laws, § 306.1.
The probate of a will in another state could only affect property devised by the will in that jurisdiction and cannot affect property in the state of Texas. Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U.S. 43, 52 L.Ed., 95; Burbank v. Ernst, 232 U.S. 162, 58 L. Ed., 551; Holyoke v. Holyoke, 110 Me. 469, 87 A. 40; Scripps v. Wayne Probate Judge, 131 Mich. 265, 90 N.W. 1061; Smith v. Smith, 122 Va. 341, 94 S.E. 777; Re: Clark's Estate, 148 Cal. 108, 82 P. 760; Frederick v. Wilbourne, 198 Ala. 137, 73 So. 442; Selle v. Rapp, 143 Ark. 192, 220 S.W. 662; Schweitzer v. Bean, 154 Ark. 228, 242 S.W. 63; Dibble v. Winter, 247 Ill. 243, 93 N.E. 145; Lynch v. Miller, 54 Ia., 516, 6 N.W. 740; McGovern v. McGovern, 192 Ia., 1196, 186 N.W. 60; McEwan v. Brown, 176 N.C. 249, 97 S.E. 20; Opp v. Chess, 204 Pa., 401, 54 A. 354; Kirkland v. Calhoun, 147 Tenn. 388, 248 S.W. 302. MR. JUDGE HARVEY of the Commission of Appeals delivered the opinion for the court.