3 § 15. Domicil Of Choice(1) A domicil of choice is a domicil acquired, through the exercise of his own will, by a person who is legally capable of changing his domicil.(2) To acquire a domicil of choice, a person must establish a dwelling-place with the intention of making it his home.(3) The fact of physical presence at a dwelling-place and the intention to make it a home must concur; if they do so, even for a moment, the change of domicil takes place.
4 § 10. Domicil By What Law Determined (1) A question of domicil as between the state of the forum and another state is determined by the law of the forum.
5 § 121. Law Governing Validity Of Marriage Except as stated in §§ 131 and 132, a marriage is valid everywhere if the requirements of the marriage law of the state where the contract of marriage takes place are complied with.
6 § 132. Marriage Declared Void By Law Of Domicil A marriage which is against the law of the state of domicil of either party, though the requirements of the law of the state of celebration have been complied with, will be invalid everywhere in the following cases:(a) polygamous marriage,(b) incestuous marriage between persons so closely related that their marriage is contrary to a strong public policy of the domicil,(c) marriage between persons of different races where such marriages are at the domicil regarded as odious,(d) marriage of a domiciliary which a statute at the domicil makes void even though celebrated in another state.
7 2nd Rest § 283(2) A marriage which satisfies the requirements of the state where the marriage was contracted will everywhere be recognized as valid unless it violates the strong public policy of another state which had the most significant relationship to the spouses and the marriage at the time of the marriage.
8 Uniform Marriage Evasion Act (adopted Massachusetts’s 1913): No marriage shall be contracted in this commonwealth by a party residing and intending to continue to reside in another jurisdiction if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other jurisdiction, and every marriage contracted in this commonwealth in violation hereof shall be null and void.
9 § 134. Marriage Contrary To Public Policy If any effect of a marriage created by the law of one state is deemed by the courts of another state sufficiently offensive to the policy of the latter state, the latter state will refuse to give that effect to the marriage.
12 Venuto v Robinson (3d Cir 1941) Robinson agreed in NC to lease his equipment to Ross Motor Lines and to take load for Ross from NC to New EnglandRobinson had accident in NJVenuto (a domiciliary of NJ) sues Ross (and Robinson) in NJ ctNJ law allowed for derivative liabilityNC law did not
13 - Assume that the contract between Daniels and Sack had by chance been entered into in Massachusetts rather than Conn. But the facts of the case were otherwise the same
15 Haumschild: “While the appellant's counsel did not request that we overrule Buckeye v. Buckeye, supra, and the subsequent Wisconsin case dealing with this particular conflict of laws problem, he did specifically seek to have this court apply California's conflict of laws principle, that the law of the domicile is determinative of interspousal capacity to sue, to this particular case. However, to do so would violate the well recognized principle of conflict of laws that, where the substantive law of another state is applied, there necessarily must be excluded such foreign state's law of conflict of laws.”
16 Swank v HufnagleOhio woman guaranteed husband’s debt with promissory note, executed in Ohio, and backed up by security interest on Indiana landOhio allowed woman to be surety for their husbandsIndiana did notSuit in Indiana to enforce security interest
17 Burr v BecklerIn Florida, Illinois wife guaranteed husband’s debt, backed up by security interest in Illinois propertyFlorida had prohibition on wives acting as suretyIllinois didn’tSuit in Illinois to enforce security interest
18 Thomson v KyleAlabama woman executed promissory note in Ala backed up by mortgage on land in FloridaOnce again wives can’t be surety under Ala lawThey can under Florida lawSuit in Florida to enforce security interest
19 Caldwell v GoreD erected dam on La propertyObstructed flow of water upstream to P’s property in ArkLa had servitude of lower land to higher to receive water flow freelyArk law allowed obstruction if reasonable etc.