$50,000 had become the husband's or had remained entirely the separate property of the wife, by the law of the matrimonial domicile, the ownership would remain the same, although a different rule might be applied in their succeeding domicile of choice. As a general rule, therefore, when personal property belonging to the wife becomes the husband's, by the law of their domicile, a subsequent change of domicile will not alter the existing rights of the husband. And, on the other hand, where personal property belonging to the wife remains her separate estate, removal into another state does not affect her rights (3). However, as to acquisitions and earnings of the pair made in the new domicile, the respective rights are governed entirely by the law of that domicile.

§ 80. Same: Realty. The rule with reference to land owned by either, whether owned before the marriage or acquired afterwards, is not affected in any way by a change of domicile of the married pair. The laws of the domicile have no influence upon their respective rights in each other's realty, but they are governed entirely by the law of the nation in which the same is situated. Thus, if by the law of the state where the spouses are domiciled, the husband is entitled to the rents and profits of the wife's land, but, by the law of the state where the land is situated, she is entitled to the rents as her individual and separate property, the law of the state where the land is situated controls.

§ 81. Summary. From this chapter it appears that the law, for settling between husband and wife their re

(3) Bond v. Cummings, 70 Maine, 125.

spective rights in the property each had at the time of the marriage, is supplied by the matrimonial domicile, if the property involved was personalty. If they change their domicile and acquire property, the law of the new domicile is applied to fix their rights in this newly acquired property, but it does not in any way change the interests they have acquired under the law of their prior domicile. The law of the place where the immovables each owns are situated, fixes their rights in those properties.

CHAPTER V.

DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY AFTER DEATH.

§ 82. Scope of chapter. In the two preceding chapters the rights of living persons in contracts and property were given attention. This chapter will deal with the rights of persons in succeeding to the property of deceased persons. The problem will be to determine what nation shall settle the rules for the distribution of intestate property, and what nation shall pass upon the validity of wills of property in general, and the capacity of persons to make them.

§ 82a. Nature of problems involved. An owner of property may die leaving a will. If valid, the distribution of his property is effected accordingly. On the other hand, he may die without having made a will, or the will he made may be found to be void, wholly or in part. As to any part of his property undisposed of by a valid will, he is said to have died intestate. In such event the question immediately arises, who, under the law, are the distributees of his property. He may have been the owner of real and personal property situated in the state of his domicile, or he may have had such property situated in a foreign nation in which he was not domiciled. Where the property is situated at the domicile no question of conflict of laws can arise, as the law of the domicile and the law of the place where the property is situated are the same. It is only where the intestate owned property, whether

real or personal, in some other state than that of his domicile, that questions arise, and then only when the rules of distribution differ in the two. In such a case it may be urged by those whose interests are favored by the rules of distribution of the domicile that the law of the domicile should be applied; and, on the other hand, it may be urged by those whose interests are favored by the law of the state where the property is located that its rules should be applied.

SECTION 1. INTESTATE SUCCESSION.

§ 83. Intestate succession to personal property governed by law of domicile. A well-settled rule has been established as a result of conflicts that have arisen in cases where one died intestate leaving personal property in a state not his domicile. In such a situation the rule has been almost universally applied that the law of distribution provided by the domicile of the intestate controls, as against the rule provided by the nation where the property is situated.

In Lawrence v. Kittredge (1) the intestate had his domicile in Vermont. He had an estate there, but also had a claim of $1,000 against a person residing in Connecticut. The question arose as to whether Connecticut or Vermont should supply the rule for the distribution of the $1,000 and determine what persons should have it. By the law of Vermont, where the intestate was domiciled, the brothers and sisters of an intestate of the whole and half blood were entitled equally to the personal property. By the law of Connecticut the half blood could not take any inter

(1) 21 Connecticut, 576.

est. It was contended by the whole blood brothers and sisters, there being no other heirs of the deceased, that the Connecticut law, where the property was situated, should apply and thus exclude the half bloods from any interest in the property. The half bloods took the position that they had a right to a part of the $1,000, as the law of the domicile of the deceased and not the law of the place of the property controlled. The court applied the law of the domicile, and, quoting from another case (2), said: "It certainly is now a settled principle of international law that personal property shall be subject to that law which governs the person of the owner, and that the disposition, distribution of, and succession to personal property, wherever situated, is to be governed by the laws of that country where the owner or intestate had his domicile at the time of his death."

§ 84. Same: Exception by statute of situs. It is to be noted, however, that the above rule is subject to an exception where the law of the state where the property is situated expressly commands that even as to the property of persons domiciled beyond its jurisdiction, its rules shall apply. As stated by the court in the case cited above: "It is in the power of every sovereignty, and within the constitutional powers of the states of this Union, to repudiate this salutary doctrine in its application to themselves, or to modify it for what they may suppose to be the protection of their own citizens; but, without some peculiar necessity, it cannot be supposed that any well regulated government will do it." The state of Illinois, for example, has an express statute regulating such cases, (2) Holcomb v. Phelps, 16 Connecticut, 127.