1. Lecture 5 Sept. 10, 2018

2. domicile

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. marriage

6. § 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.

7. § 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.

8. 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.

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.

10. corporations

11. Corp incorp’ed in state A by law of state A a corp is not liable for the torts of its agents Agent of Corp commits tort in state B where corp’s are liable

12. characterization

13. Levy v. Daniels’ U-Drive (Conn. 1928)

14. interest analysis…

15. give Mass the derivative liability law and Conn the normal tort law but keep the other facts the same what result under lex loci delicti…?

16. 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 England
Robinson had accident in NJ
Venuto (a domiciliary of NJ) sues Ross (and Robinson) in NJ ct
NJ law allowed for derivative liability
NC law did not

17. - 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

18. was the plaintiff (Levy) a party to the contract?

19. The contract was for the “direct, sole, and exclusive benefit” of the plaintiff, who is alleged to have been injured through the tortious operation of the automobile rented by the defendant to Sack. The right of the plaintiff as a beneficiary of this contract to maintain this action is no longer an open question in this state. The contract was made for him and every other member of the public. …The assent of the beneficiary, if required, is manifested in his action upon the contract.

20. if the Conn law is contract, what is the Mass law…? is it contract too?

21. Haumschild v Continental Cas Co. (Wisc. 1959)

22. why is the choice of Wisc law a good idea?

23. doesn’t Cal have an interest too…?

24. imagine California allowed liability and Wisc. refused it…

25. Emery v. Emery (Cal. 1955)

26. 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.”

27. renvoi désistement

28. contract or property?

29. Swank v Hufnagle
Ohio woman guaranteed husband’s debt with promissory note, executed in Ohio, and backed up by security interest on Indiana land
Ohio allowed woman to be surety for their husbands
Indiana did not
suit in Indiana to enforce security interest
characterization?

30. Burr v Beckler
in Florida, Illinois wife guaranteed husband’s debt, backed up by security interest in Illinois property
Florida had prohibition on wives acting as surety
Illinois didn’t
suit in Illinois to enforce security interest
characterization?

31. are Swank v Hufnagle and Burr v Beckler compatible?

32. Thomson v Kyle
Alabama woman executed promissory note in Ala backed up by mortgage on land in Florida
wives can’t be surety under Ala law
they can under Florida law
suit in Florida to enforce security interest
characterization?

33. Caldwell v Gore
D erected dam on La property
Obstructed flow of water upstream to P’s property in Ark
La had servitude of lower land to higher to receive water flow freely
Ark law allowed obstruction if reasonable etc.

34. substance/procedure

35. Grant v McAuliffe (Cal. 1953)

36. why does the choice of Cal law make sense…?

37. imagine that the action had been brought in Nevada…