I think an executor ought to use the same diligence in collecting the debts of his testator, as he would use in collecting his own, provided he is a man commonly careful and diligent in the management of his own affairs, and this without regard to the consideration whether the debtor lives in one state or another. All the personal estate of the testator, wherever it is, belongs to the executor, ((5 Co, 47.) and he ought to use ordinary diligence to collect it. (2 Brown 186. Bac. Ab. Executor, B. 2.) Perhaps to collect a small debt in a distant state would cost more than the amount of the debt; but every case must depend upon its own circumstances. Procuring letters testamentary in another state, is not of itself a decisive objection. As the jury were otherwise informed, I think there should be a new trial.
Another objection is made in this Court, and that is to the action being revived against the administrator of John Sanders• Arnold v. Executor of Lanier, (1 Law Repos. 528.) decides this case. That was an action of deceit, brought against an executor for the deceit of the testator in selling an unsound slave. Judge Sea-weut, delivered the opinion of the Court as follows: The act of 1799 declares that no action of detinue or trover, or action of trespass, where property either personal or real, is in contest, and such action of trespass is not merely vindictive, shall abate by the death of either party. This is an action of trespass, though not vi el arms and *566the passions and feelings have no concern; it is in fact to recover for an act done by the defendant’s testator, whereby he has been made richer and the present plairi-tiff poorer; wherefore we are all of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment. The same remark is applicable to the present case. I therefore think this objection not a good one.
The law of the domicil of the owner governs the transfer and transmission ab intestado of goods. A will, therefore, made according to the forms of that domicil, passes such property wheresoever it may be situated; and if proven in the Courts of that country, when offered in evidence in a foreign country, proof is not gone into of the execution of the will, but only of the probate. Such foreign probate, therefore, authorizes the executor to receive debts, take into his possession the property of his testator, and to do all acts appertaining to his office, except sustaining the character of an executor when he is the reus actor or plaintiff in a cause in Court; this character he cannot sustain here, not for want of right, but for want of such documentary evidence of the right that the Court can see upon an inspection (for the Court does not, at that stage of the business, go into proof) that he is executor; lie cannot, therefore, make a> profert of his letters testamentary, obtained in a foreign country, for want of authentic documentary evidence which our Courts can recognize without proof. He must, therefore, obtain letters testamentary here. But this is not obtained by proving the will here de novo, for in that case it would be making our law, and not the law of the place where he had his domicil, the rule of decision. Our Court of Probate goes into evidence as to the fact of the foreign probate only; and if satisfied of that fact, issues letters testamentary, that is, gives documentary evidence which our courts recognize as genuine. The taking out letters here is nothing more than obtain*567ing the proof necessary for the executor to sustain his real character in our Courts, owing to our forms, If. ° therefore, the interests of the testator requires it, the executor is bound to do it. It is a devastavit to omit it, if thereby the estate sustains a loss. The magnitude of the debts lo be sued for, the distance, the expense, are to be taken into consideration, in ascertaining whether the interest ■>£ the estate requires it. Hut A lien the probate has been made in a sister state, mo think that the constitution of the United States, and the law of the United States, thereupon gives to the probate., when authenticated according to the law of the United States, such an authentic form, as that our Courts will recognize the probate without proof, and that such probate may be proffered to the Court to sustain the character of an executor. So that take it either way, the executor has been guilty of a de-vastavit in not attempting to collect the debt due in South Carolina, and therefore there should be a new trial. In saying that goods are regulated in their transfer and transmission ah intestato by the lex loci, we do. not include such property as owes its origin to the peculiar laws of any particular country, such as stock in bank and other corporate bodies. Such property is a creature of the law, and may be regulated by the will of the legislature of that country which gives such property existence.
Judgment reversed.