CONTRACTS. In the older cases it is held that it is a general principle applying to contracts made, rights acquired, or acts done relative to personal property, that the law of the place of making the contract, or do ing he act, is to govern it and determine its validity or invalidity, as well as the rights of parties under it, in all matters touching the modes of execution and au thentication of the form or instruments of contract ; and also in relation to the use and meaning of the language in which it is ex pressed, the construction and interpretation of it, the legal duties and obligations imposed by it and the legal rights and immunities acquired under it ; 8 Cl. & F. 121; Houghton v. Page, 2 N. H. 42, 9 Am. Dec. 30 ; Picker ing v. Fisk, 6 Vt. 102; May v. Breed, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 30, 54 Am. Dec. 700; Speed v. May, 17 Pa. 91, 55 Am. Dec. 540; FIoughtaling v. Ball, 19 Mo. 84, 59 Am. Dec. 331; Hayward v. Le Baron, 4 Fla. 404; Glenn v. Thistle, 23 Miss, 42; Scudder v. Bank, .91 U. S. 406, 23 L. Ed. 245; Dacosta v. Davis, 24 N. J. L. 319; Downer v. Chesebrough, 36 Conn. 39, 4 Am. Rep. 29 ; Hildreth v. Shepard, 65 Barb. (N. Y.) 265. See CONFLICT OF LAWS.
The validity or invalidity of a contract as affected by the lea loci may depend upon the capacity of the parties or the legality of the act to be done.
The capacity of the parties as affected by questions of minority or majority, incapac lties incident to coverture, guardianship, emancipation, and other personal qualities or disabilities, is, it has been said, to be de- I cided by the law of the place of making the contract ; Story, Confl. Laws § 103; Appeal of Huey, 1 Grant (Pa.) 51. See infra.
The question of disability to make a con tract on account of infancy is to be decided by the lex loci; Appeal of Huey, 1 Grant 51; 2 Kent 233. So, also, as to contracts made by married women; Gamier v. Poydras, 13 La. 177.
Personal disqualifications not arising from the law of nature, but from positive law, and especially such as are penal, are strict ly territorial, and are not to be enforced in any country other than that where they inate; Story, Confl. Laws §§ 91, 104, 620; 2 Kent 459. See Whart. Confl. L. § 101 ; Price v. Wilson. 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 9.
Natural disabilities, such as insanity, im becility, etc., are everywhere recognized, so that the question whether they are con trolled by the lea loci or lea donvicilii seems to be theoretic rather than practical. On
principle there seems to be no good reason why they should come under a different rule from the positive disabilities.
A contract legal by the lex loci will he so everywhere; Miller v. Wilson, 146 Ill. 523, 34 N. 1111, 37 Am. St. Rep. 186; unless— It is injurious to public rights or morals ; 1 B. & P. 340; Greenwood v. Curtis, 6 Mass. 379, 4 Am. Dec. 145; De Sobry v. De Laistre, 2 H. & J. (Md.) 193, 3 Am. Dec. 535; or con travenes the policy; Castleman v. Jeffries, 60 Ala. 380; King v. Johnson, 5 Harming. (Del.) 31; 2 Sim. Ch. 194; see Armstrong v. Best, 112 N. C. 59, 17 S. E. 14, 25 L. R. A. 188, 34 Am. St. Rep. 473; or violates a posi tive law of the lex fori; or, in England, vio lates any English rule of procedure; Dicey, Confl. Laws 542. The application of the lex loci is a matter of comity; and that law must, in all cases, yield to the positive law of the place of seeking the remedy ; Martin v. Hill, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 631; Mahorner v. Hooe, 9 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 247, 48 Am. Dec. 706.
It is held generally that the claims of citizens are to be to those of for eigners. Assignments, under the insolvent laws of a foreign state, are .often held in operative as against claims of a citizen of the state, in regard to personal property in the jurisdiction of the lea fori; King v. Johnson, 5 Harring. (Del.), 31; Beer v. Hoop er, 32 Miss. 246 ; Tyler v. Strang, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 198; but see Wilson v. Carson, 12 Md. 54. But there appears to be a distinc tion. This rule is well settled in all cases where the assignment of the property of an insolvent is made, in invitunt, by a court in a foreign jurisdiction, to a receiver, assignee, ete.; 6 Thomp. Corp. § 7338; Catlin v. Sil ver-Plate Co., 123 Ind. 477, 24 N. E. 250, 8 L. R. A. 62, 18 Am. St. Rep. 338; Humphreys v. Hopkins, 81 Cal. 551, 22 Pac. 892, 6 L. R. A. 792, 15 Am. St. Rep. 76. But where a vol untar' assignment is made, if good where made and made in conformity with the law where the property is situated, it is valid in the latter state, ex proprio vigore; Appeal of Smith, 117 Pa. 30, 11 Atl. 394 ; First Nat. Bank of Attleboro v. Hughes, 10 Mo. App. 7 ; 6 Thomp. Corp. § 7347; Story, Conti. L. § 111.