Tues. Jan. 26
property
Early draft of 2nd Restatement:
First, land and things attached to the land are within the
exclusive control of the state in which they are situated,
and the officials of that state are the only ones who can
lawfully deal with them physically. Since interests in
immovables cannot be affected without the consent of the
state of the situs, it is natural that the latter’s law should be
applied by the courts of other states. The second reason is
that immovables are of greatest concern to the state in
which they are situated; it is therefore proper that the law
of this state should be applied to them. The third reason is
to be found in the demands of certainty and convenience…
domicile
§ 15. Domicil Of Choice
(1) A domicil of choice is a domicil acquired, through
the exercise of his own will, by a person who is legally
capable of changing his domicil.
(2) To acquire a domicil of choice, a person must
establish a dwelling-place with the intention of
making it his home.
(3) The fact of physical presence at a dwelling-place and
the intention to make it a home must concur; if they
do so, even for a moment, the change of domicil takes
place.
§ 10. Domicil By What Law Determined
(1) A question of domicil as between the state of the
forum and another state is determined by the law of
the forum.
domicile
residence
nationality
habitual residence
marriage
• § 121. Law Governing Validity Of Marriage
• Except as stated in §§ 131 and 132, a marriage is valid
everywhere if the requirements of the marriage law
of the state where the contract of marriage takes
place are complied with.
§ 132. Marriage Declared Void By Law Of Domicil
A marriage which is against the law of the state of domicil
of either party, though the requirements of the law of
the state of celebration have been complied with, will be
invalid everywhere in the following cases:
(a) polygamous marriage,
(b) incestuous marriage between persons so closely
related that their marriage is contrary to a strong public
policy of the domicil,
(c) marriage between persons of different races where
such marriages are at the domicil regarded as odious,
(d) marriage of a domiciliary which a statute at the domicil
makes void even though celebrated in another state.
2nd Rest § 283(2)
A marriage which satisfies the requirements
of the state where the marriage was
contracted will everywhere be recognized
as valid unless it violates the strong public
policy of another state which had the most
significant relationship to the spouses and
the marriage at the time of the marriage.
§ 134. Marriage Contrary To Public Policy
If any effect of a marriage created by the law of one
state is deemed by the courts of another state
sufficiently offensive to the policy of the latter state,
the latter state will refuse to give that effect to the
marriage.
corporations
Corp incorp’ed in state A
by law of state A a corp is not liable for the
torts of its agents
Agent of Corp commits tort in state B where
corp’s are liable
characterization
Levy v. Daniels’ U-Drive
(Conn. 1928)
• Venuto v Robinson (3d Cir 1941)
• Robinson agreed in NC to lease his equipment to Ross
Motor Lines and to take load for Ross from NC to New
England
• Robinson had accident in NJ
• Venuto (a domiciliary of NJ) sues Ross (and Robinson)
in NJ ct
• NJ law allowed for derivative liability
• NC law did not
The contract was for the “direct, sole, and exclusive
benefit” of the plaintiff, who is alleged to have been
injured through the tortious operation of the automobile
rented by the defendant to Sack. The right of the plaintiff
as a beneficiary of this contract to maintain this action is
no longer an open question in this state. The contract
was made for him and every other member of the public.
…The assent of the beneficiary, if required, is manifested
in his action upon the contract. That the beneficiary was
undetermined because each of the public was a
beneficiary is of no consequence. His injury determines
his identity and right of action.
- Assume that the contract between
Daniels and Sack had by chance
been entered into in Massachusetts
rather than Conn. But the facts of
the case were otherwise the same.
Haumschild v Continental Cas Co.
(Wisc. 1959)
Imagine California allowed liability and Wisc.
refused it…
Emery v. Emery (Cal. 1955)
• Haumschild: “While the appellant's counsel did not
request that we overrule Buckeye v. Buckeye, supra,
and the subsequent Wisconsin case dealing with this
particular conflict of laws problem, he did specifically
seek to have this court apply California's conflict of
laws principle, that the law of the domicile is
determinative of interspousal capacity to sue, to this
particular case. However, to do so would violate the
well recognized principle of conflict of laws that,
where the substantive law of another state is applied,
there necessarily must be excluded such foreign
state's law of conflict of laws.”
renvoi
désistement