Now, assuming that you have read the proposed changes, I shall not take up your time further. The sole object of them is to enable us to pass title to property in Georgia by will, that is properly executed and probated in the domicile of the testator, provided he be a citizen of the United States. I think we are but one country, and, if the testator conforms to the law of his domicile, and happens to own property in Georgia, we should fully recognize his will, and its probate, and let it be executed as such, regardless of mere form.

The President: Is there any motion with reference to that proposed legislation?

Mr. J. H. Merrill (Thomasville): I am quite in favor of this measure. In my practice I have to do with a great many people living in other States, who have made their homes in our county temporarily, and I have found all these troubles. Frequently we have run across the trouble of a will having only two witnesses, failing to carry out the provisions of our law. I move that this suggestion-Exhibit B-be referred, as the other was, to the Legislative Committee.

Mr. J. J. Strickland (Athens): A man lives in Texas, and, not familiar with the laws of Georgia, he makes his will under the laws of Texas. Now the same trouble might frequently arise where a person, who had lived in Georgia, would take up his residence in some other State, and draw his will. He would probably not know any more about the law of Georgia than the man living in Texas, and he would call upon a lawyer in Texas. to draw his will, and he would draw the will in accordance with the Texas law. So I think the bill ought to be enlarged, so as to embrace both the man who lives out of the State and the man whose home is in Georgia, but who happened to be out of the State at the time he drew his will.

Mr. Alex W. Smith (Atlanta): That would not be germain to this matter at all. This deals with foreign wills.

Mr. J. J. Strickland (Athens): Well, would that be a foreign will?

Mr. Alex W. Smith (Atlanta): Not at all.

Mr. Hamilton Douglass (Atlanta): If I am correctly in

formed, according to the law of Virginia, but two witnesses are required to a will, but a holographic will may be made without any witnesses. Now a man may make a will without any witnesses at all, under that law. I would like to ask if under the proposed law a foreign will of that kind would devise realty in Georgia and be effective?

Mr. Alex W. Smith (Atlanta):

The law, as amended,

would read as follows: "If any real estate in this State is devised or bequeathed by the terms of any foreign will, such foreign will may be admitted to probate in any county in this State in which such property is situated, provided such foreign will is in writing, attested and executed according to the laws of the State or Territory of the United States in which the testator resided at the time of his death, and if such testator resided without the United States, such will must be in writing, attested and executed according to the laws of this State."

Mr. Hamilton Douglass (Atlanta): Then you answer “yes” to that question.

Mr. Alex W. Smith (Atlanta): I answer that it would be, if it was in writing, and executed as required by the laws of that State.

Mr. H. C. Cunningham (Savannah): What is the objection to extending this comity to persons residing without the United States?

Mr. Alex W. Smith (Atlanta): I felt that our comity should not extend beyond the territory of our own Government, but it may be well to extend it beyond that I did not consider that.

Mr. P. W. Meldrim (Savannah): The underlying principle is the same, that a will that is good and valid at the place of execution should be held valid everywhere.

Mr. Alex W. Smith (Atlanta): Well, I have no objection to the extension. I simply say that we, the committee, did not consider it.

Mr. George W. Owens (Savannah): I think it would be well to apply it to all wills, whether made abroad or in America. No will executed in the United States would have to conform to the

provisions of the law of this State, but abroad they would have to be executed in accordance with the law of Georgia. I don't see the necessity of that. Why not let it apply to all, whether executed abroad or in the United States?

Mr. Alex W. Smith (Atlanta): There is a real reason for confining the provisions of this bill to the territory of the United States. This bill carries with it two ideas, one to provide for the execution of the will by the executor named in the will, and the other to make him subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Ordinary by service upon the attorney of record, if any, or by publication, as now provided by law, in cases affecting property of non-residents situated within the jurisdiction of the courts of this State. My idea was that the limit of the ability of our courts to bring into court any executor who acted under our probate court, would be the territorial limits of the United States. The object of this law is to make a foreign executor, though his actual domicile may be abroad, a domestic executor, when he submits himself to the jurisdiction of our court. I think it would extend the principle a little too far to have it apply to an executor in Austria, or in France, or in China. I think we should be content to let the provisions of this proposed bill be extended to the territorial limits of the United States, and it would be time enough later to take up the matter of a further extension of the provision.

Mr. George W. Owens (Savannah): It frequently happens that a resident of America makes his will while he is abroad; and I fail to see the merit of allowing wills executed within the United States probated in this State according to the provisions of that bill, and denying that privilege to wills executed without the United States.

Mr. S. H. Sibley (Union Point): When wills are being admitted to probate in this State under the provisions of this bill, the Ordinary would be confronted with the question as to whether they were executed according to the laws of the State or Territory where they were made. A certificate from the Judge admitting it to probate in that State would probably be sufficient, and we might very well be content with this procedure

with reference to any wills executed in any of our sister States, but we might hesitate to adopt a provision which virtually swallows any sort of policy which the people of Asia or other foreign countries might see fit to adopt on that subject. We are going too far to adopt whatever any foreign country may see fit to prescribe in the matter of wills.

The President: The only motion before the house is that of Mr. Merrill, that this bill be referred to the Legislative Committee, with the purpose of having the legislation enacted. there any amendment to this recommendation?

Mr. J. H. Merrill (Thomasville): My intention in framing the motion was to follow the previous motion, giving the committee the same power as to verbiage, etc.

The President: It might be well possibly to have two acts submitted.

Mr. J. H. Merrill (Thomasville): I got the impression that there was some provision whereby some person resident in the county or State where the will is sought to be probated should be designated on whom service could be perfected as upon the foreign executor or administrator. I asked Mr. Smith about it, and he calls my attention to the fact that it is the "attorney of record, if any." It seems to me that it would be proper for the administrator or executor, when seeking to probate the will of a foreign testator in any county in this State, or to qualify as administrator or executor, to designate at the time some person in that county on whom service could be made, and that such service would bind him, as if he had been served personally. I make that suggestion to the committee to whom it may be referred.

Mr. Alex W. Smith (Atlanta): I think that's a very excellent suggestion. It did not occur to the committee. The drafts of these bills are, of course, suggestive only. We did not mean that the committee to whom they might be referred should be hide-bound or committed to the phraseology or verbiage of these drafts as submitted.

The President was then about to put the motion of Mr. Merrill, which had been seconded, when he was interrupted by

Judge J. R. Lamar (Augusta): I think, if you will notice the laws just prior to 1894, you will find a number of acts that were passed for the purpose of meeting specific cases. I think one of those special acts was introduced by Judge Little from Columbus. Then came the 1894 act, which was drawn in line with Story's Commentaries - that is, as to personal property the law of the domicile governs, but as to real estate we should require the same conformity to our law in wills that we do when we pass title by deed, and that act was drawn in pursuance of that general rule, which applies, I believe, in most all of the States. There have been a number of the States that have modified it and introduced bills somewhat along the line of the one suggested in this report, but nothing like the majority of the states have done so. A deed to real estate is governed by the law of Georgia, and a conveyance of real estate by will ought to be governed by the law of Georgia. I am satisfied under the provisions set forth in that proposed bill the holographic will executed in Virginia could pass title to real estate in Georgia. I think that will could be proven here. That act of 1894 was in pursuance of a definite policy and principle, and this proposed act is really revolutionary. I am rather disposed to vote for leaving the old law alone, which I think is wise.

Mr. R. C. Alston (Atlanta): Just a word in reference to service by publication. The power to serve by publication is limited. You can serve by publication for the purpose of removing a cloud upon a title to real estate or personal property, and affecting certain other things, but you cannot serve by publication for the purpose of getting a judgment in personam. Now, if a foreign executor administered the estate in Georgia for twelve months, and during that twelve months he was freed from suit, he could leave the State before the expiration of the twelve months, and a local legatee or creditor, who would have had no right to sue during the twelve months, would then be obliged to go into another jurisdiction in order to get a judgment in personam against that executor. That appears to me to be the logical result of this measure.

Mr. S. H. Sibley (Union Point): I am inclined to think