240 Iowa 431, 35 N.W.2d 658 (1949)
Mary E. Barrie was domiciled in Whiteside County, Illinois, at the time of her death. She owned real and personal property in Illinois as well as real property located in Tama County, Iowa.1
After her death an instrument purporting to be her last will and testament was discovered. The instrument had been signed by the decedent and witnessed by two witnesses.2 When found the word "void" had been written across its face in at least five places, including the attestation clause, and the same word together with the name "M. E. Barrie" and "Mary E. Barrie" also appeared on the cover and on the envelope containing the instrument.3
The instrument was offered for probate in Whiteside County, Illinois. It was first admitted to probate but was later denied probate after the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the instrument had been revoked by cancellation and that the decedent had died intestate.4
Thereafter one of the beneficiaries named in the instrument offered it for probate in Tama County, Iowa. The decedent’s heirs at law filed objections to the petition for probate. The objections were based upon the Illinois Supreme Court judgment.5 The proponent moved to strike the objections on the ground that they did not constitute a valid basis for denying probate. The trial court overruled the motion to strike and this appeal was taken from that order.6
Whether the judgment of the Illinois court, holding that said instrument had been revoked and that decedent died intestate, is conclusive and binding upon the Iowa courts?7
The effectiveness of an intended revocation of a will of an interest in land is determined by the law of the state where the land is.8 The full faith and credit clause does not require that a decree denying probate in the domicile state be given conclusive effect in another state as to real property located there.9 Iowa courts have original jurisdiction to probate the wills of nonresidents who die owning property in the county subject to administration.10
No. Mary E. Barrie owned real property in Tama County, Iowa at the time of her death. The Illinois Supreme Court denied probate after finding that writing the word "void" across the instrument constituted revocation by cancellation under Illinois law.11
Iowa law under section 633.10, Code of 1946, does not recognize those same acts as a revocation.12
The district court of Tama County possesses original and exclusive jurisdiction under section 604.3, Code of 1946, to probate the wills of nonresidents who die leaving property within the county subject to administration.13 The situs of the Iowa real estate controls questions of revocation. The full faith and credit clause does not extend the Illinois judgment to real property outside Illinois. Therefore the Illinois decree does not bind Iowa courts on the question of whether the instrument was revoked.
The judgment of the Illinois court is not conclusive and binding upon the Iowa courts with respect to the Iowa real property.14
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Mantz, C. J., And Hale And Mulroney, Jj.
Justice Smith dissented on the ground that Iowa statutes, particularly section 633.49, Code of 1946, require recognition of a will or revocation accomplished in the mode prescribed by the law of the testator's domicile.15 He argued that the common-law distinction between real and personal property under lex loci rei sitae had been modified by statute so that the same formalities govern both types of property.16 The Illinois judgment should therefore be treated as res judicata on the status of the instrument.17
Smith viewed revocation as the converse of execution.18 He concluded that the legislature intended the law of the domicile to govern both acts to avoid conflicting determinations between states.19