This branch of the law has been long cultivated by the continental countries of Europe, where many learned jurists have discussed its principles. But probably owing to the insular position of the United Kingdom, little attention was given to it there; and indeed no work even incidentally treated of the subject until Mr. Justice Story, an American judge, in 1834, first produced his celebrated treatise on the Conflict of Laws, and gave to British lawyers a methodical view of the results at which foreign jurists had arrived. In the United States, where each independent state had its own muni cipal laws, which often differed materially from those of the other federal states, it was natural and inevitable that some system should be adopted as to the way each state should deal with the rights of persons coming from the neighboring states; and hence America preceded England in the development of this branch of the law. Story's work is still the standard authority in the United Kingdom. Since the laws of Scotland differ in many respects from those of England and Ireland, and each country has its own courts exercising independent jurisdiction, it is a matter of course that questions of conflict under these two codes of law should often arise. Not only do the courts of Scotland and England treat the laws of the other country as foreign laws, and deal with each other in much the same way as they would deal with France, or any other foreign country, but the laws in other respects are materially different, and give rise to conflicts. On this particular branch of the law affecting England and Scotland, Mr. Paterson's Compendium of English and Scotch Law contains a summary of all the material differ ences between the laws of these two countries, that are of the greatest practical importance to residents in the United Kingdom.
As regards marriage, the leading doctrine of the comitas gentium is, that it is imma terial in What part of the world a man is married provided he is married, and when once married according to the law of the place where he then is, such marriage will be held a valid marriage all the world over, and wherever he goes. This doctrine, how ever, is qualified in this way, that the le.e loci the law of the place where the marriage was contracted—shall regulate the validity of the marriage only so far as any ceremony is essential to the institution of marriage; but it is not allowed to dictate who the parties are who may validly marry. nor to vary any essential part of the con tract, The reason of the latter qualification is, that there may be rules of policy in one *country which may prohibit marriages between certain persons, or may prohibit certain consequences, and therefore the evasion of the native law by persons going abroad for such a purpose is not to be tolerated. For example, in Scotland, marriage is treated as a mere contract, which requires no particular ceremony beyond mere mutual consent; while in England some ceremony is absolutely essential—viz., the ceremony of the mar riage being celebrated in a parish church by a priest, or in a office, if there is no priest. Accordingly, any two English persons may go to Scotland and be married there by exchanging a verbal declaration of marriage; and if one had resided there 21 days before, they will be held to be married persons, and may immedi alely return to England, if so disposed. On the other hand, if two Scotch persons go to England, they cannot be married by exchanging mere verbal declarations; they must be married, according to the English law, either by a priest in a church or without one in a superintendent-registrar's office; and if so. they will be held to be married all the world over. Again, the law of England declares that no marriage shall be valid within certain prohibited degrees, and amongst others no man is there allowed to marry his deceased wife's sister, Hence, if a man and his deceased wife's sister go from England to Denmark, where the law allows such person. to marry, and they there are married according to the form there prevailing, and then return to England, where their domi• cite is, they will not be treated as married persons, because they went to evade their own law in a matter which is considered of vital importance. It would, however, be dif
ferent if a man and his deceased wife's sister, who were Danes, and domiciled in Den mark at the time of their marriage, came afterwards to this country; they would in that case be treated as properly married, for their domicile was then Danish, and they had a right to follow their own law.
Another important head of international law is as to the law which regulates the suc cession to the property of a person deceased. On this subject, the rule is, that it is the law of the country in which a man was domiciled at the time of his death which regu lates the succession to his personal property, even though such property is scattered over all parts of the world; hence, it is necessary first to ascertain where the deceased person had his domicile. See DOMICILE. The above rule as to the domicile of a deceased person governing the succession applies only to his personal property; as to his landed or real property, the succession to it is governed by the law of the country where such land is situated. Hence, if an Englishman dies domiciled in England, leav ing a Scotch estate, such estate will descend according to the Scotch, and not the Eng lish law, and it is well known the rules of succession differ materially in the two countries. See Paterson's Compendium of English and Scotch Law. Where the person does not (lie intestate, but leaves a will, then it is now, by statute, almost immaterial whether his will was made according to English or Scotch law.
Another important head of private international law is as to the court in w'iich a remedy Can be obtained on ordinary contracts. The rule is, that wherever a contract was made, the contract must be valid according to the law of the place where it was made, but the remedy may be had anywhere else wherever the defendant can be found. Thus, if a person makes a contract or incurs a debt in Scotland, and afterwards goes to England, he may be sued in the English courts, though the English court will only allow the remedy, provided the contract was valid according to Scotch law. It follows also from this rule that if a debt be incurred in Scotland which would prescribe in three years, yet, if the debtor be in England, he can be sued any time within six years, for that is part of the English remedy. It is often of no small importance to know where and in what country a person may be sued. The general rule is that one must follow his debtor, and sue the debtor in whatever country such debtor resides. In this respect, however, Scotchmen have greater advantages over Englishmen than Englishmen over Scotchmen, for while the rule in England is that a Scotehman can only be sued there in ordinary cases, provided such Scotchman is actually present in England, and can be personally served with process of the court—i.e., with a copy of a writ of summons—in Scotland the rule is that in many cases an Englishman can be sued though he never in his life were in Scotland at all; it is enough if lie has some debt due to him there, or has left some trifling article of property—such, for example, as his umbrella—which can be arrested. In the latter case the chattel or debt is first seized by the Scotch creditor, in order to found jurisdiction, or, as it is technically called, arrestum jurisdietionis fondant& caysa, and then the Englishman can be sued, and judgment may he obtained against him in his absence, even though he never heard of the action. Englishmen have often complained of this as a barbarous practice of the Scotch courts; nevertheless, the very same practice exists in the city of London, though nowhere else in England. When judgment is once obtained either in England, Scotland, or Ireland, it is now competent for the judgment creditor at once to attach or seize the goods of the debtor in either of the two other countries, if in the mean time the debtor has gone there. The creditor used formerly a fresh action in the new country to which the debtor had removed, and went over precisely the same process again. This circuitous process has been at last effectually remedied by an act' of parliament, which allows execution to follow judgment in any of the three kingdoms, except where a Scotch judgment was founded on arrestment only.