Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1883, the entire Tyler term, 1883, and the early part of the Galveston term, 1884. Volume 60. Page: 355

                                
1883.]                MILLS v. HERNDON.                  355
Opinion of the court.
day of December, 1873, to their mother, S. II. Toler, and signed
" Nath'l T. Green [seal], executor of C. P. Green, deceased; Lucy
Alston Green [seal]. The second, executed the 3d day pf April,
1874, to S. H. Toler by N. P. Green, as executor of the will of C. P.
Green, deceased. In this he was also joined by his wife, Lucy
Alston Green. By the first, which was executed and acknowledged
in Tennessee, two tracts of land situated in this state were described-
one the tract in controversy. That deed was recorded in
Grayson county, February 17, 1874. The other deed conveyed the
same land, and, besides, all the interest and effects of the estate.
C. P. Green died testate in the state of North Carolina in 1843,
where his will was probated the same year, by which his brothers,
Thos. J. Green and N. T. Green, were his legatees and devisees,
except as to some personal property and money which was given to.
certain servants. And N. T. Green was nominated as executor, and
qualified under the will.
By the charge of the court it seemed that both of the deeds to
Mrs. Toler were made by Nath'l T. Green, as executor of C. P.
Green, deceased, and as the will of the latter had never been probated
or properly filed and recorded in this state, and as Nath'l T.
Green had never qualified here as executor, that therefore no title
passed by reason of said deeds. This charge determined the case in
the court below against appellants, and they claim that the charge
is erroneous, because it appeared from  the record that Nath'l
T. Green was an heir at law of C. P. Green, deceased; and, also, that
he was a legatee and devisee under his will, and that the will was
admitted to probate in Grayson county on the -   day of September,
1879. That the probate of the will in Grayson county related
back to, and validated the conveyances. And if this was not true,
then the conveyance first made passed all the interest that Nath'l
T.. Green had in the land, either as heir at law or devisee under the
will.
It seems to be well established law, that an executor acting
under a will probated in another state would have no authority to
do any act in this state, as such executor, until he had complied
with our statute in respect to the filing and recording such will. In
Holman v. Hopkins, 27 Tex., 38, it is said, in effect, that it is well
settled that the law of the place of the actual domicile is to govern
his testamentary disposition of his personal property, wherever it
may be situated. But as to real property the law of the place
where land is situated governs, not only as to the capacity of the
testator and the extent of his power to dispose of the property, but