LEX REI SITE (Lat.). The law of the country where a thing is situate. Dicey, Confl. Laws 66. It is said to be an inexact mode of expression ; lea Mils, or lea loci rei sitce are better. 29 L. Q. R. 2 (H. Gondy).
It is the universal rule of the common law that any title or interest in land, or in other real estate, can only be acquired or lost agreeably to the law of the place where the same is situated ; Blake v. Williams, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 286, 17 Am. Dec. 372; Hosford v. Nichols, 1 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 220; Wills v. Cowper, 2 Ohio, 124 ; 5 B. & C. 438; Cormick v. Sullivant, 10 Wheat. (U. S.) 192, 6 L. Ed. 30 ; Darby v. Mayer, 10 Wheat. (U. S.) 465, 6 L. Ed. 367; Story, Confl. Laws §§ 365, 428 ; Hutchinson Inv. Co. v. Caldwell, 152 U. S. 65, 14 Sup. Ct. 504, 38 L. Ed. 356; Arndt v. Griggs, 134 U. S. 316, 10 Sup. Ct. 557, 33 L. Ed. 918; Sewall v. Haymaker, 127 U. S. 719, 8 Sup. Ct. 1348, 32 L. Ed. 299 ; and the law is the same in this respect in regard to all methods whatever of transfer, and every restraint upon alienation ; 12 a L & Eq. 206. The lea rei sito governs as to the capacity of , the parties to any alienation, whether testamentary or inter visas, or to make a contract with regard to a movable.
or to acquire or succeed to a movable as affected by questions of minority or major. ity ; Saul v. His Creditors, 5 Mart. N. 8, (La.) 569, 16 Am. Dec. 212 ; of rights arising from the relation of husband and wife; Story, Confl. Laws § 454; 9 Bligh 127; Le Breton v. Miles, 8 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 261; Newcomer v. Orem, 2 Md. 297, 56 Am. Dec. 717; Duncan v. Dick, Walk. (Miss.) 281; Richardson v. De Givervllle, 107 Mo. 422, 17 S. W. 974, 28 Am. St. Rep. 426 ; L. R. 8 Ch. 342 ; see Robinson v. Queen, 87 Tenn. 445, 11 S. W. 38, 3 L. R. A. 214, 10 Am. St. Rep. 690 ; parent and child, or guardian and ward; 2 Ves. & B. 127; Morrell v. Dickey, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 153; Kraft v. Wickey, 4 Gill & J. (Md.) 332, 23 Am. Dec. 569; Moore v. Hood, 9 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 311, 70 Am. Dec. 210; Martin v. McDonald, 14 B. Monr. (Ky.) 544; Cox v. Williamson, 11 Ala. 343; Hines v. State, 10 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 529; but see In re Morgan, 7 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 236; and of the rights and powers of executors and administrators, whether the property be real or personal; 8 Cl. & F. 112; Dixon v.
Ramsay, 3 Cra. (U. S.) 319, 2 L. Ed. 453; Smith v. Bank, 5 Pet. (U. S.) 518, 8 L. Ed. 212; Thompson v. Wilson, 2 N. H. 291; Stearns v. Burnham, 5 Greenl. (Me.) 261, 17 Am. Dec. 228; In re Picquet, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 65; Holmes v. Remsen, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 229, 11 Am. Dec. 269 ; Riley v. Riley, 3 Day (Conn.) 74, 3 Am. Dec. 260; Slauter v. Chen owith, 7 Ind. 211; Kirkpatrick v. Taylor, 10 Rich. (S. C.) 393 (see EXECUTORS) ; of heirs; 5 B. & C. 451; Kerr v. Moon; 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 566, 6 L. Ed. 161; and of devisee or de visor ; Story, Confl. Laws § 474; 14 Ves. 337; Doe v. McFarland, 9 Cra. (U. S.) 151, 3 L. Ed. 687 ; McCormick v. Sullivant, 10 Wheat. (U. S.) 192, 6 L. Ed. 300; Eyre v. Storer, 37 N. H. 114.
So as to the forms and solemnities of alienation, and the restrictions, ,if any, im posed upon such alienation, the lea rei sitte must be complied with, whether it be a trans fer by devise; 2 P. Wms. 291; McCormick v. Sullivant, 10 Wheat. (U. S.) 192, 6 L. Ed. 300 ; Wills v. Cowper, 2 Ohio 124; Eyre v. Storer, 37 N. H. 114 ; Bowen v. Johnson, 5 R. I. 112, 73 Am. Dec. 49 ; Drake v. Merrill, 48 N. C. 368 ; Keith v. Keith, 97 Mo. 223, 10 S. W. 597; Ware v. Wisner, 50 Fed. 310; Robertson v. Pickrell, 109 U. S. 608, 3 Sup. Ct. 407, 27 L. Ed. 1049 ; Crolly v. Clark, 20 Fla. 849 (but in Maine, under statutes, an attestation made in conformity with the law of the place where the will was executed, was held valid ; Lyon v. Ogden, 85 Me. 374, 27 Atl. 258) ; or by conveyance inter vivo; 2 Dovvl. & C. 349 ; Cutter v. Davenport, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 81, 11 Am. Dec. 149; Hosford v. Nichols, 1 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 220; Frazier v. Moore's Adm'r, 11 Tex. 755; Donaldson v. Phillips, 18 Pa. 170, 55 Am. Dec. 614. So as to the amount of property or extent of interest which can be acquired, held, or transferred; 3 Russ. Ch. 328; 2 Dow. & C. 393; and the question of what is real prop erty; 1 W. Bla. 234; Chapman v. Robertson, 6 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 630; 31 Am. Dec. 264. The law of a country where a thing is situ ate determines whether the thing itself, or any right, obligation, or document connected with the thing is to be considered an immov able (land), or a movable; Dicey, Coml. Laws 513.