Opinion ID: 2620003
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Probate Order California

Text: A final judgment of a court in a sister state must be accorded full faith and credit under the United States Constitution despite errors in interpretation of the law of another state, Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U. S. 230, 28 S.Ct. 641, 52 L.Ed. 1039 (1908). The appellee correctly states that the order admitting a will to probate is in the nature of a judgment in rem and therefore can only be attacked directly, Estate of Brown, 25 Haw. 70, 74 (1919). Nevertheless, A judgment in such a proceeding will not bind anyone personally unless the court has jurisdiction over him, and it is not conclusive as to a fact upon which the judgment is based except between persons who have actually litigated the question of the existence of the fact. Restatement of Judgments § 73(2) (1942). The appellees did not allege that the appellant appeared and litigated the issue of domicile, and therefore she is not personally bound by the factual conclusions in the California probate order.