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.

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.

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.

CHAPTER IV.

MARITAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.

§ 73. In general. In the preceding chapter rights of persons based upon express contracts were involved. In this chapter rights in property entirely independent of any express contract will be considered. The law recognizes certain property rights that arise out of the formation of the relation of husband and wife, and certain other rights that arise from its continuance under a change of domicile. These will be now considered.

§ 74. Matrimonial domicile. In order to comprehend the rights of husband and wife in each other's property during life, and by what laws they are determined, the domicile of the married pair must be known. If the husband before the marriage was domiciled in Massachusetts, and the wife in Connecticut, and, after their marriage, they took up their domicile at either the domicile of the husband or wife, then that domicile is known as their matrimonial domicile. They may, however, choose a place for a domicile in which neither had been domiciled before the marriage. That place is nevertheless their matrimonial domicile. It is the nation in which they first take up a domicile after their marriage. After such a matrimonial domicile has been acquired, it may be lost, as a domicile of origin or of choice may be, by the acquisition of a new domicile. In fact, several domiciles may be had during the life of a married pair. Their rights in

each other's property under such changes deserve attention, as the laws of as many nations may be involved as domiciles are acquired. The rights in each other's property, upon the death of one, may be more appropriately treated under intestate and testate succession, Chapter V, below.

§ 75. Rights of spouses in each other's personal property: Property owned at time of marriage. The leading American case on this subject is Harral v. Harral (1). Frederick F. Harral was born in Connecticut. He acquired an education as a physician and surgeon, and took up a domicile of choice in New York city, where he practiced his profession. In order to acquire a knowledge of French and German and to continue his professional studies, he went abroad. While at Paris he became acquainted with Clarice Marie Le Gars, the complainant. He married her and they acquired a matrimonial domicile in France, according to the rules of Conflict of Laws. At the time of his departure for Europe, and also at the time of the marriage and settlement of the married pair at Paris in France, he owned considerable personal property in Connecticut, which he left in the United States in charge of another person. Harral lived in Paris a few years, returned to the United States, and died in Pennsylvania, leaving a will giving all of his property to his brothers and sisters. His French wife brought suit against the legatees and also the executors of the will to get possession of what she claimed was her portion of the Harral personal property.