The same doctrine applies to a determina tion of the rights in real estate created by a foreign contract of marriage or marriage set tlement. Such rights must be created in ac cordance with the law of the etas; Besse v. Pellochoux, 73 Ill. 285, 24 Am. Rep. 242; Heine v. Ins. Co., 45 La. Ann. 770, 13 South. 1; Richardson v. De Giverville, 107 Mo. 422, 17 S. W. 974, 28 Am. St. Rep. 426. This is said by the writer quoted (20 H. L. R. 382) to be also the doctrine of the continental courts. But in England in a case where a marriage had been contracted in France un der the community system and the husband and wife emigrated to England where the husband acquired land and died, the wife was held entitled to a community interest in the land ; [1902] 2 Ch. 410.
The question whether a certain transaction constitutes a charge upon the separate estate of a married woman must be determined by the law of the etas; Read v. Brewer (Miss.) 16 South. 350; Wick v. Dawson, 42 W. Va. 43, 24 S. E. 587; as wherea married woman made an agreement in Louisiana, invalid by the law of Louisiana, the invalid agreement would nevertheless charge her separate es tate in Mississippi land, if such was the law of Mississippi ; Frierson v. Williams, 57 Miss. 451.
But courts of equity of another country may, in a sense exercise power over foreign land, and deal with it as if equitable rights in it existed. Such courts may in certain cas es decree a conveyance of foreign land in specific performance of a contract to convey ; Toiler v. Carteret, 2 Vern. 494; or require mutual deeds to rectify the boundaries of foreign lands ; Penn v. Lord Baltimore, 1 Ves. 444; or decree a reconveyance for fraud; Arglasse v. Muschamp, 1 Vern. 75;. Massie v. Watts, 6 Cra. (U. S.) 148, 3 L. Ed. 181. Such action is usually taken on the ground that the contract or the fraud creates a constructive trust, which equity is enforc ing, and where the law of the situs creates such a constructive trust, there is no obstacle to prevent a court of equity in another state, having jurisdiction of the parties, from en forcing the trust; 20 H. L. R. 382. In Scott
v. Nesbitt, 14 Nes. 438, Lord Eldon, upon principles of natural justice, charged upon a West Indian estate the balance of an account in favor of a managing co-owner, though the law of the situs allowed no charge; 20 H. L. R. 386.
If a contract creates an equitable interest in the land in the nature of a constructive trust, by the law of the situs, this interest in the laud will be everywhere recognized, as where title deeds to land in New York were .deposited by the owner as security, and this transaction by the law of New York created an equitable mortgage, the existence of the equitable interest was recognized in a suit in New Jersey, although such a deposit of deeds did not by the law of New Jersey cre ate an equitable interest in the land ; Griffin v. Griffin, 18 N. J. Eq. 104 ; and where a con tract concerning ]and in Massachusetts was made in North Carolina, the Massachusetts court recognized and enforced the interest in land thereby created by Massachusetts law though the contract, being one between hus band and wife, was one which could not have been made in Massachusetts, nor could suit be brought in that state on the contract ; Poi son v. Stewart, 167 Mass. 211, 45 N. E. 737, 36 L. R. A. 771, 57 Am. St. Rep. 452.
Where Scotch immovables had been settled upon trust without power of alienation, and the trustees had sold the Scotch property and invested the proceeds in English Securities, the trusts in the proceeds were held still to depend upon Scotch law ; In re Fitzgerald, [1904] 1 Ch. 573. • See LEx Loci; LEx Four; CONFLICT OP LAWS ; TAX ; GARNISHMENT.