sons everywhere, but a transfer to be good against such persons must be made in accordance with such law. In that case Bates owned certain safes which were situated in Illinois. Van Buskirk took a mortgage of them in New York, but did not record it as required by the law of Illinois. Green, a creditor of Bates, attached the property and sold it to satisfy his claim. Van Buskirk sued him for the value of the chattels. The court held he could not recover. The case carries the principle of the preceding cases a step further, and shows that a transfer of a chattel, situated in another state than that in which the contract of transfer is made, to be valid against third persons must be made in accordance with the law of the place where the chattel is situated.

§ 68. Same: Choses in action. In an English case (15) an Australian corporation had a claim for subscriptions to its stock against a person domiciled in Scotland. It made a transfer of its claim to another. Such a transfer in Australia was good, even as against attaching creditors, without the necessity of the assignee giving notice to the debtor that the assignment had been made. But, by the law of Scotland, where the property may be said to have been located by analogy to the chattel cases, a notice to the debtor was requisite in order to prevent attaching creditors taking the claim ahead of the assignee. An attaching creditor garnished the claim due the corporation in the Scotch debtor's hands. The court held that the attaching creditor's rights were superior to those of the assignee.

(15) In re Queensland Co. [1891], 1 Ch. Div. 536.

§ 69. Same: Shares of corporate stock. In the case of Masury v. Arkansas National Bank (16) the registered holder of stock in an Arkansas corporation made a transfer of it to another, but no change was made on the books of the company to show the transfer. The transferor still appeared to be the owner. By the law of Illinois the rights of the tranferee are superior to those of an attaching creditor, even though the transfer has not been made on the books, but, by the law of Arkansas, the attaching creditor's rights are superior to those of the transferee. The court held that the law of Arkansas, where the property was deemed to be located, would control. An Arkansas attaching creditor succeeded as against the Illinois transferee of the stock.

§ 70. Validity of contract concerning real estate: Ordinarily determined by law of situs. In Swank v. Hufnagle (17) a married woman owned land situated in Indiana. She executed a mortgage on it in the state of Ohio, where she was domiciled, to secure her husband's debt. By the law of Indiana, where the land was, a married woman could not make a valid mortgage to secure another's debt. This protection was afforded by the law of that state to married women, against the loss of their property by becoming another's surety. But, by the law of Ohio, which was the place of the domicile and also the place of the execution of the mortgage, a married womar could make such a mortgage on land situated there. The court held that, although the mortgage might have been valid if the land had been situated in Ohio, it was invalid

(16) 87 Fed., 381.

(17) 111 Indiana, 453.

as to the Indiana land. A similar case arose where, by the law of the state where the mortgage was made and where the individual was domiciled, the mortgage would have been void because the person had not reached the age of majority, twenty-one years in that state. By the law of the state of Ohio, where the land was situated, the age of majority was eighteen. The individual who made the mortgage was over eighteen but under twentyone. The court held the law of the place of the situation of the land controlled, and held the mortgage valid (18). The same rule would seem to be applicable to a contract to sell land.

§ 71. Same: Note secured by mortgage. In Frierson v. Williams (19) a married woman, residing and domiciled in Louisiana, had a separate estate in realty situated in Mississippi. She made a contract in Louisiana with reference to her Mississippi land, whereby she intended to charge it with the payment of a note, upon which the suit was brought to foreclose the lien or charge on the land. By the law of Louisiana the married woman's note was void, and it was contended that, it being void, it could not be used as a basis for a proceeding to foreclose a lien. It is the law, as shown above, that, if a suit had been brought on this note independently of the land, it would have been held to be void. By the law of Louisiana, where it was made, it would have been void; and SO everywhere, even though by the law of the domicile she could have made a valid

(18) Sell v. Miller, 11 Ohio State, 331.

(19) 57 Mississippi, 451.

contract (20). The court held, however, that, as it was intended to create a charge on the land by the note, and as by the law of the state where the land was situated it could create a valid charge, it could be enforced as a lien against the land. The court said: "If she had made a contract expressly disposing of this property, it will not be denied that, though void by the laws of Louisiana, either for her want of capacity to act, or the want of the observance of the forms and solemnities prescribed by those laws, yet, if valid by the law of this state, it would have been good. The contract here is not strictly of that character, yet the making of it is the exercise of the power of the wife to dispose of her estate; for, whenever that power is denied, the power to charge it with her debts is denied also, and the charge can only be made effectual by the actual or threatened alienation of the estate, under a decree of the chancery court. The charging of her separate estate for the payment of money does not pass any actual interest in the land, but it is the first and essential step for a judicial disposition of the estate to satisfy the charge.

§ 72. Deeds and conveyances must conform to law of situs. In Clark v. Graham (21) a grantor of land executed a letter of attorney to another, in order to authorize him to act as his agent and make the conveyance. The land was situated in Ohio, but the power of attorney was executed in Virginia. By the Ohio laws, deeds and powers of attorney to convey land were required to be subscribed

(20) See § 57, above.

(21) 6 Wheaton (U. S.), 577.

by two witnesses and to be acknowledged before a court or a justice of the peace. The power of attorney was regular, except that the acknowledgment was taken before a notary public instead of a court or a justice. The deed had only one subscribing witness, whereas the Ohio law required two. Although no statement appears that these instruments of conveyance were executed in accordance with the law of Virginia where they were drawn, they were not executed in accordance with the Ohio law. As a result, the court held no title passed by virtue of them. The law of the state where the land is situated governs as to the form of instrument required to make a valid conveyance of it. And, conversely, it is held that a deed, good according to the law of the place where the land is situated, is a good deed, though it is not good by the law of the place where it was made (22).

(22) Post v. First National Bank, 138 Illinois, 559.