The United States, in their sovereign capacity, have no particular place of domicile, but possess, in contemplation of law, an ubiquity throughout the Union; and the debts due by them are not to be treated like the debts of a private debtor, which constitute local assets in his own domicile.

—the territory of the government which grants it; and does not, de jure, extend to other countries. It cannot confer, as a matter of right, any authority to collect assets of the deceased in any other state; and whatever operation is allowed to it beyond the original territory of the grant is a mere matter of comity, which every nation is at liberty to yield or to withhold, according to its …

It is also the law that "The debts due from the government of the United States have no locality at the seat of government."

—it was held, that an administrator could not be sued in another State for a debt due from his intestate, because he is bound to account for all the assets he receives, to the proper tribunals of the government from which he derives his authority.

If this case were before us on appeal from that decree, it might be doubtful, to say the least, whether the decree should be affirmed—in view of the general rule that an administrator's power to act, as well as his duty to account, is limited to the State from whose courts he derives his authority, and that therefore he cannot sue or be sued in another State in which he has not …

While a judgment against a party may be conclusive, not merely against him, but also against those in privity with him, there is no privity between two administrators appointed in different States.

—discharge, at any place where the Government may choose to pay. If any other doctrine were to be recognized, the consequence would be, that, before the personal representative would be entitled to receive payment from the Government, he would be compelled to take out letters of administration in this District for the due administration of such assets. Such a doctrine …

Those would fall within the oft-criticized rule (see Ehrenzweig, Conflict of Laws, p. 45, note 3) that federal and state courts in one state will not take jurisdiction of suits by executors and administrators appointed in another State where the cause of action was one which belonged to the decedent.

The United States, in their sovereign capacity, have no particular place of domicile, but possess, in contemplation of law, an ubiquity throughout the Union, "so that Kentucky administrator of decedent's estate was not suable in the District of Columbia by next of kin on a claim involving debt due from United States to decedent

The Probate Court in Massachusetts, and no other court, had authority to settle the executors' accounts and determine their compensation.