CONFLICT OF LAWS.—Under this title are usually considered the rules which regulate the rights and obligations of private individuals when they are affected by the separate internal laws of distinct countries having independent jurisdictions. The rules of this class which are observed by the English Courts are a part of English law ; and in like manner, similar rules in Scotland, France, Russia, or any other country, would be part of the "municipal" or internal law of either of those or any other country re spectively. These rules are also known under the title of Private Inter national Law ; but the objection to that title lies in the fact the international law is a body of law to which states are subject, and consequently " private" international law should mean a body of law more extensive than, and superior to, the territorial limits of any one state, and one to which individual members of a state are subject, in addition to the laws of their own state. For this reason " the law relating to the conflict of laws" is a more appro priate designation than is "private international law." The circumstances under which the rules relating to the conflict of laws come into operation are, in cases of disputes between individuals, incidental to ‘s hich are differences between the internal laws of various countries, which internal laws disagree, not because the countries are in dispute one w ith the other, but generally because the legislators of each country have taken the internal situation solely into consideration, and have overlooked the existence of the other countries. In questions relating to the conflict of laws, it is not necessary that the particular countries in question should be foreign to each other, in the sense that they are each under different independent sovereigns. It is suflivient if they are distinct countries or areas, having each its own peculiar law and jurisdiction. Thus, for example, the laws in Scotland, England, India, Cape Colony, and Canada may be different from one another, and yet each of these countries is a part of the same kingdom and empire.
So there may be a conflict between the laws of the various United States of America, and yet each of these States is a part of a supreme federation.
The rules have regard chiefly to contracts, rights and remedies, and to marriages, divorces, wills, successions, and judgments. The principal rule is that each civilised nation is to give efficacy to the laws of another country, unless its own laws or the general principles of justice are thereby invaded. On the basis of this rule tie English courts will enforce any rights duly acquired in any civilised country, provided iteenforcement is not inconsistent with any English statute intended to neutralise tiffs rule, or with the policy of our law, or the maintenance of our institutions, or does not trespass upon the authority of a foreign sovereign.
As to to land.—The general principle of the law is, that the laws of the place where landed or " immovable' property is situate exclusively govern, with regard to the rights of the parties, the modes of transfer and the solemnities which should accompany them. This is called the doctrine of the lex situs. If for example a contract relating to land situate in France is in question, according to this doctrine the contract will be governed by the law of France ; and an English court will require evidence of that law in order to decide any dispute in respect of that contract. Thus the " capacity " of the parties to the contract N% ill be determined by the law of France ; so also will the formalities required in a contract of that nature—that it should be in writing, by deed, or a notarial act, according as the law of France may be. The law of France does not recognise as valid a transfer of freehold property according to the form of an English convey ance; accordingly the English courts would, consistently with that law, hold a transfer of freeholds situate in France to be invalid if made in the English form only.