CONFLICT OF LAWS. A contrariety or opposition in the laws of states or countries in cases where the rights of the parties, from their relations to each other or to the sub ject-matter in dispute, are liable to be affect ed by the laws of both jurisdictions.
As a term of art, it also includes the deciding which law is in such cases to have superiority. It also includes many cases where there is no opposi tion between two systems of law, but where the question is how much force may be allowed to s foreign law with reference to which an act has been done, either directly or by legal implication, in the absence of any domestic law exclusively applicable to the case.
As to the most suitable term to apply to this branch of the law, see PRIVATE INTERNA TIONAL LAW.
Among the leading canons on. the sub ject are these : the laws of every state af fect and bind directly all property, real or personal, situated within its territory, all contracts made and acts done and all per sons resident within its jurisdiction, and are supreme within its own limits by virtue of its sovereignty ; Milne v. Moreton, 6 Binn. (Pa.) 361, 6 Am. Dec. 466; Green v. Van Buskirk, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 151, 19 L. Ed. 109; Minor v. Cardwell, 37 Mo. 354, 90 Am. Dec. 390; Cowp. 208 ; 4 T. R. 192. Ambassadors and other public ministers while in the state to which they are sent, and members of an army marching through or stationed in a friendly state, are not subject to this rule; Crawford v. Wilson, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 522; U. S. v. Lafontaine, 4 Cra. C. C. 173, Fed. Cas. No. 15,550.
Possessing exclusive authority, with the above qualification, a state may regulate the manner and circumstances under which prop erty, whether real or personal, in possession or in action, within it, shall be held, trans mitted, or transferred, by sale, barter, or bequest, or recovered or enforced; the con dition, capacity, and state of all persons within it ; the validity of contracts and other acts done there; the resulting rights and duties growing out of these contracts and acts; and the remedies and modes of admin istering justice in all cases ; Story, Cowl Laws § 18; Vattel, b. 2, c. 7, §§ 84, 85.
Whatever force and obligation the laws of one country have in another depends upon the laws and municipal regulations of the latter ; that is to say, upon its own er jurisprudence and polity, and upon its own express or tacit consent ; Huberus, lib.
1, t. 3, § 2.
The power of determining whether, or bow far, or with what modification, or upon what conditions, the laws of one state or any rights dependent upon them shall be recog nized in another, is a legislative one. The comity involved is a comity of the states, and not of the courts, and the judiciary must be guided in deciding the question by the prin ciple and policy adopted by the legislature; Thompson V. Waters, 25 Mich. 214, 12 Am. Rep. 243; Stack v. Cedar Co., 151 Mich. 21, 114 N. W. 876, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 616, 14 Ann. Cas. 112. The contract in the latter case was made in Michigan, in which state an Illinois corporation had been admitted to do business. An Illinois statute provided that no corporation should interpose the de false of usury in any action. It was con tended that this disability imposed iu the state creating the corporation followed it and attached to its charter in Michigan. But the court held that the restriction in Illinois would not follow it into Michigan so as to prevent it from taking advantage of the local statute against usury.
When a statute or the unwritten or com mon law of the country forbids the recogni tion of the foreign law, the latter is of no force whatever. When both are silent, then the question arises, which of the conflicting laws is to have effect. Each sovereignty must determine for itself whether it will en force a foreign law ; Finney v. Guy, 106 Wis. 256, 82 N. W. 595, 49 L. R. A. 486 ; Hunt v. Whewell, 1z2 Wis. 33, 99 N. W. 599; Fox v. Telegraph-Cable Co., 138 Wis. 648, 120 N. W. 399, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 490. It is a principle universally recognized that the revenue laws of one country have no force in another. The exemption laws and laws relating to married women, as well as the local statute of frauds, and statutes authorizing distress and sale for non-payment of rent, are not recognized in another jurisdiction under the principles of comity. Morgan v. Neville, 74 Pa. 52 ; Waldron v. Ritchings, 3 Daly (N. Y.) 288; Siegel v. Robinson, 56 Pa. 19, 93 Am. Dec. 775; Ross v. Wigg, 34 Hun (N. Y.) 192; Ludlow v. Van Rensselaer, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 95.