col samplex rev

8/18/2019 Col Samplex Rev

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/col-samplex-rev 1/9

LEX DOMICILIDOMICIL

- The law of the place of domicil governs as to all acts of the parties, when not controlled by the lex loci contractus or lex rei sitae. The state

and condition of the person according to the law of his domicil will generally, though not universally, be regarded in other countries as toacts done, rights acquired, or contracts made in the place of his native domicil, but as to acts, rights, and contracts done, acquired or madeout of his domicil the lex loci will generally govern in respect to his capacity and condition.

- The lex domicilii is the Latin term for "law of the domicile" in the conflict of laws. Lex loci domicilii means the law of the place of domicile. Itis the law of the place of a party’s dwelling house. Lex loci domicilii is applied in case related to will, marriage, divorce, separation andcontract.

- That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent, he hasthe intention of returning.

- - A person must have a domicil for purposes of Taxation Jurisdiction Succession Administration Loyal character Homesteadexemptions Attachment

- - Domicil may either be national or domestic In deciding the question of national domicil, the point to be determined will be in whichof twoor more distinct nationalities a man has his domicil In deciding the matter of domestic domicil, the question is in whichsubdivision of thenation does the person have his domicil

LEX FORI- The law of the country to the tribunal of which appeal is made- The local or territorial law of the country to which a court, wherein a action is brought, or other legal proceeding is taken, belongs- The forum of remedies, modes of procedure and execution of judgments are regulated solely and exclusively by the laws of the place

where the action is instituted

- A cause of action arising in one state, under the common law as there understood, may be enforced in another state where it would notconstitute a cause of action, if the variance in these laws does not amount to a fundamental difference of policy

- The lexfori is to decide who are proper parties to a suit- Lex fori governs as to the nature, extent, and character of the remedy- Arrest and imprisonment may be allowed by the lexfori , though they are not by the lex loci contractus - The forms of judgment and execution are to be determined by the lexfori .- The lexfori decides as to deprivation of remedy in that jurisdiction.

LEX LOCI- Generally, the substantive rights of the parties to an action are governed by the lex loci, that is, the law of the place where the right was acquired orthe liability was incurred- It is used sometimes to denote the law of the place where the contract was made o And at other times, to denote the law by which the contract is tobe governed, which may or may not be the same as that of the place where it was made- May be either lex loci contractus (the law of the place of making a contract) lex loci rei sitaeor lex situs (the law of the place where a thingissituated) lex loci actus or lex actus (the law of the place where a legal transaction takes place) lex loci celebrationis(the law of the place where acontract is made) lex loci solutionis (the law of the place where a contract is to be performed) lex loci delicticommissi(the law of the place where atort is committed)- the law of a place, or rather, the law of a place as in where a right was acquired or a liability incurred.

LEX REI SITAE- The law of the country where a thing is situated- 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 and the law is the same in this respect in regard to all methods whatever of transfer, andevery restraint upon alienation.

- The lex rei sitae governs as to the capacity of the parties to any alienation, whether testamentary or inter vivos, or to make a contract withregard to a movable, or to acquire or succeed to a movable as affected by questions of minority or majority, of rights arising from therelations of husband and wife, parent and child, or guardian and ward, and of the rights and powers of executors and administrators,whether the property be real or personal, and of devisee and devisor.

- So as to the forms and solemnities of alienation, and the restrictions, if any, imposed upon such alienation, the lex rei sitae must becomplied with, whether it be a transfer by devise

- So as to the amount of property or extent of interest which can be acquired, held, or transferred- And the question of what is real property- The law of a country where a thing is situated determines whether the thing itself, or any right, obligation, or document connected with the

thing is to be considered an immovable or a movable- Generally, the lex rei sitae governs as to the validity of any such transfer- The validity, construction, and effect of wills of movables depend upon the lex rei sitae

Principle of territoriality

Every nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction within its own territory

The direct consequence of this rule is that the laws of every state affect and bind directly all:o Property, whether real or personal, within its territoryo Persons who are residing within it, whether natural-born subjects or alienso Contracts made, and acts done within it



A state may, therefore, regulate the manner and circumstances under which:o Property within it, whether real or personal or in action, shall be held, transmitted, bequeathed, or transferred, or enforcedo The condition, capacity, and state of all persons within ito The validity of contracts and other acts done within ito The resulting rights and duties growing out of these contracts and actso And the remedies and modes of administering justice

In all cases calling for the interpretation of its tribunals to protect, vindicate, and secure the wholesome agency of its own laws within its non-domain

No state or nation can, by its laws, directly affect or bind property out of its territory, or persons not residing therein, whether they are natural-born

or subjects or otherso It would be wholly incompatible with the equality and exclusiveness of the sovereignty of any nation that other nations should be at

liberty to regulate either persons or things within its territories

Whatever force and obligation the laws of one country have in another depends solely upon the laws and municipal regulations of the latter; thatis to say, upon its own proper jurisprudence and polity, and upon its own express or tacit consent

Comity

The assertion that the recognition or enforcement of foreign law depends upon comity means only that the law of no country can have effect aslaw beyond the territory of the sovereign by whom it was imposed, unless by permission of the state where it is allowed to operate

o The application of foreign law is not a matter of caprice or option, it does not arise from the desire of a sovereign to show courtesy toother states

o It flows from the impossibility of otherwise determining whole classes of cases without gross inconvenience and injustice to litigants,whether natives or foreigners

Vested rights

A right having been created by the appropriate law, the recognition of its existence should follow everywhereo Thus an act valid where done cannot be called in question anywhere

When a right has been created by law, this right itself becomes a fact, and its existence may be a factor in an event which the same or someother law makes the condition of a new right

If no law having power to do so has changed a right, the existing right should everywhere be recognized, since to do so is merely to recognizethe existence of a fact

Local law theory

The forum, when confronted by a case involving foreign elements, always applies its own law to the case, but in doing so adopts and enforces asits own law a rule of decision identical in scope with a rule of decision found in the system of law in force in another state or country with whichsome or all of foreign elements are connected, the rule so selected being in many groups of cases, the rule of decision which the given foreignstate or country would apply, not to their very group of facts now before the court of the forum, but to a similar but purely domestic group of factsinvolving for the foreign court no foreign element

o The rule thus incorporated into the law of the forum may, for convenience, be called the “domestic rule” of the foreign state, asdistinguished from its rule applicable to cases involving foreign elements

o The forum thus enforces not a foreign right, but a right created by its own law

FOREIGN LAW IN FORUM- In the absence of prof as to what the law of a foreign state or country is, the court, when it takes judicial notice that the foreign state has

fundamentally the same systems of law as that of the forum, will presume that the law of the foreign state is the same (exclusive ofstatutory changes) as that of the law of the forum

- The courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and they must, therefore, be proved as matters of fact, and pleaded- • The lex fori also applies by defaultin cases where the foreign law is pleaded but insufficiently proved o Jurisdictions that accept the foreign

law as law doctrine generally also apply the lex fori in cases where the foreign law is impossible to ascertain as a practical matter

In certain circumstances, the courts will not apply foreign laws even If they are applicable and properly proveno Such is the case when the foreign law is penal in nature – a determination made by the lex forio Also, courts will neither directly nor indirectly enforce the revenue laws of another countryo A foreign law may further fail to apply where it is fundamentally offensive to the public policy of the forumo that a remedy special to a particular foreign state is not, by any principle of comity, enforceable elsewhere and must be applied only

within that jurisdiction1

FOREIGN JUDGMENT- It is a general rule that foreign judgments are admitted as conclusive evidence of all matters directly involved in the case decided, where

the same question is brought up incidentally- Such judgments and decrees in rem, whether relating to immovable property or movables within the jurisdiction of the foreign court, are

binding everywhere

1 Matters of remedy or procedure are to be determined by the internal law of the forum, regardless of where the transaction occurred out of which the

claim in question arose.

The reason is practical – it would be impossible and impracticable for the local court to adopt wholesale the trial machinery of another State, includingrules on service of process, venue, form of pleadings, and related matters.



- Better opinion: judgments in personam regular on their face, which are sought to be enforced in another country, are conclusive evidence,subject to a re-examination, in the courts where the new action is brought, only for irregularity, fraud, or lack of jurisdiction as to thecause or parties

- It must be fraud in procuring the judgment or it will constitute a ground of collateral attack

- If the court of the foreign state had jurisdiction over the parties, its judgment cannot be impeached, even if it went upon a misapprehensionof its own law

- The judgment must be given the same faith and credit as is given to domestic judgments

- Dr. Wharton 3 distinct theories as to the law which is to determine the questions of matrimonial capacity

MARY GUILTY: MARY is guilty because she married during a no-marriage period according to STATE X. State X was the place where the marriagewas celebrated. Thus lex loci contractus will apply. Generally, the substantive rights of the parties to an action are governed by the lex lociFurther, Matrimonial capacity is a distinctive national policy, as to which judges are obliged to enforce the rules of the State of which they are theofficers

MARY IS NOT GUILTY: For MARY not to be guilty, the marriage in Y must be valid.Matrimonial capacity is a distinctive national policy, as to which judges are obliged to enforce the rules of the State of which they are the officers.TWO THEORIESIt is determined by the law of the place of solemnization of the marriage: since the second marriage was in Y and was valid, the law of the placegoverns.It is determined by the lex domicilii: Since it is valid in state Y and Mary had acquired a new DOMICIL, it is valid

JUDGE: NO BIGAMYthe essentials of the contract depend upon the lex domicil , the law of the country in which the parties are domiciled at the time of the marriage, and inwhich the matrimonial residence is contemplated

- The essential validity of a contract is governed by the “proper law of the contract,” which is the law or laws by which the parties to acontract intended, or may fairly be presumed to have intended, the contract to be governed.

- This may be the law of the place where the contract was made or it may be the place of performance.- However, the contract must not be unlawful by the law of the country where it is made, and its performance must not be unlawful by the law

of the country where it is to be performed, and it must not form part of a transaction which is unlawful by the law of the country where thetransaction is to take place.

- The interpretation of a contract and the rights and obligations under it of the parties thereto are to be deter mined by the “proper law of thecontract.”

- This law may be designated by the express words of the contract, indicating the intention of the parties, which, in general, governs, or theirintention may be inferred from the terms and nature of the contract, and from the general circumstances of the case.

- In the absence of counteracting considerations, the proper law of the contract is, prima facie, presumed to be the law of the country wherethe contract is made, especially when the contract is to be performed there or may be performed anywhere, but it may apply to a contract

partly, or even wholly, to be performed in another country.- Where the contract is to be performed wholly or partly in another country, the proper law of the contract, especially as to the mode of

performance, may be presumed to be the law of the country where the performance is to take place.



Di ko to alam

First of all- It may contract in other states within the scope of its own powers and subject to the laws of the lex loci contractus or the lex loci solutionis,

as the case may be, as natural persons may contract where they do not reside Unless expressly forbidden to do so, a corporation mayacquire rights of contract and property in a foreign jurisdiction

Private corporations will be permitted to transact in other states the business authorized by the state of their creation, subject toany limitations imposed by express legislation, or to the laws and policy of the state in which it does business

Since we establish that a corp can do business in a place outside its creator-state, will the disability follow? Can M use usury as a defense?Yes provided State M allows it. Lex Fori

- The forum of remedies, modes of procedure and execution of judgments are regulated solely and exclusively by the laws of the placewhere the action is instituted- The lexfori is to decide who are proper parties to a suit- Lex fori governs as to the nature, extent, and character of the remed- The lexfori decides as to deprivation of remedy in that jurisdiction- “Defense” is a matter of procedure or remedy which generally follows the forum

Fundamentally, the question here is lex loci or lex fori?

The criterion by which to ascertain whether a particular inquiry relates to the substance of the contract or the remedy merely is said to be:o Supposed the legislature of the locus contractus to enact the law of the forum, making it applicable to the existing contract

If the result is that the obligation of the contract is either increased or impaired thereby, then the point to which the law ofthe forum relates is part of the obligation or substance of the contract and is not merely a matter of remedy lex loci willcontrol (not lex fori)

If, on the other hand, the result is that the obligation of the contract is not at all affected, being neither increased nordiminished, then the inquiry relates to a matter of remedy only, and the fori should govern

RUHE V BUCK- lex fori controls if the point to which the lex for relates is a matter of remedy. NOT of obligation.

Fori Doctrines- The local or territorial law of the country to which a court, wherein a action is brought, or other legal proceeding is taken, belongs- The forum of remedies, modes of procedure and execution of judgments are regulated solely and exclusively by the laws of the place

where the action is instituted- Lex fori governs as to the nature, extent, and character of the remedy- The forms of judgment and execution are to be determined by the lexfori .- Ultimately, the attachment was not a matter of obligation to which the parties contemplated. WON attachment is allowed does not in any

way affect the obligation contemplated. Thus, it is a remedy- http://www.jstor.org/stable/1323475?seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents



The criterion by which to ascertain whether a particular inquiry relates to the substance of the contract or the remedy merely is said to be:o Supposed the legislature of the locus contractus to enact the law of the forum, making it applicable to the existing contract

If the result is that the obligation of the contract is either increased or impaired thereby, then the point to which the law ofthe forum relates is part of the obligation or substance of the contract and is not merely a matter of remedy lex loci willcontrol (not lex fori)

If, on the other hand, the result is that the obligation of the contract is not at all affected, being neither increased nordiminished, then the inquiry relates to a matter of remedy only, and the fori should govern

Where the action was brought in State M upon a contract made in State NY to convey land situated in State M, it was held that the measure ofdamages for the breach of contract was part of the obligation of the contract to be determined by the laws of State NY, not a mere matterof remedy to be controlled by the other lex fori (State M)

A breach of contract is a breach of obligation originally contemplated by the parties.

A note is made in state x. It is payable in state Y. Is the note subject to laws of state y?Bowman v Price http://www.jstor.org/stable/1111153?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

- A note made in one state and payable in another is not subject to the usury laws of the latter state, if it was valid in that respect in the statewhere it was made.

- The essential validity of a contract is governed by the “proper law of the contract,” which is the law or laws by which the parties to acontract intended, or may fairly be presumed to have intended, the contract to be governed.

- This may be the law of the place where the contract was made or it may be the place of performance.- However, the contract must not be unlawful by the law of the country where it is made, and its performance must not be unlawful by the law

of the country where it is to be performed, and it must not form part of a transaction which is unlawful by the law of the country where the

transaction is to take place.- The interpretation of a contract and the rights and obligations under it of the parties thereto are to be determined by the “proper law of thecontract.”

- Effect must be given to the presumed intention of the parties- Bills of exchange and promissory notes are to be governed, as to validity and interpretation, by the law of the place of making, as are

other contracts.- The residence of a the drawee of a bill of exchange and the place of making a promissory note where no other place of payment is

specified is the locus contractus.- In the conflict of laws, the validity of a contract with one or more foreign law elements will be decided by reference to the so-called "proper

law" of the contract.- In the absence of counteracting considerations, the proper law of the contract is, prima facie, presumed to be the law of the country where

the contract is made,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1111153?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents






- EXC: if the place of contracting was PURPOSELY sought to evade the usury law. - To ascertain intent when it is not manifest: 1. intent must be ascretained in good faith and not for the purpose of evading the usury laws of

another state 2. It must be reasonable and referable to a place where some imporatnt element of the contract has its situs. 3. Not contracyto public policy of the forum

Employee died caused by negligence of employer. What law will control the issue of damages recoverable for such death?The damages recoverable from an employer for the death of his employee, caused by the influence of the former, are controlled by the law of the placewhere the contract of employment was made and the accident occurred, though the death took place and the action was brought in another stateChoice of law doctrinesChoice of law asks the further question whether the application of a substantive law which will determine the merits of the case is fair to both parties1. The traditional choice of law rule has been that the substantive rights and liabilities arising out of a tortious occurrence are determinable by the law ofthe place of the tort2. For example, if an employee is hired by an employer in State A, is injured due to the employer's negligence in State B, and files a lawsuit to recoverfor the injury in State A, the court in State A might look to the employment contract to see if it contained a clause that governed the employer's duty ofcare with respect to the employee. If so, the court may be able characterize the claim as a breach of the contract, instead of a tort, and apply the law ofthe State A either because it was the place where the contract was made (the lex loci contractus) or, if it were the place where the wage or salary wasto be paid, where the contract was intended to be performed (the lex loci solutionis).

NOTE: (NOT ANSWER) When the defendant’s negligent conduct occurs in one jurisdiction and the plaintiff’s injuries are suffered in another , the placeof the wrong is considered to be the place where the last event necessary to make the actor liable occurred

An action is brought in State P. It involves a promissory note governed as to the contract by the law of State N. Parol evidence

In an action in Pennsylvania on a promissory note governed as to the contract by the law of New Jersey, the question of whether parol evidence will beadmitted to vary the contract must depend upon the law of New Jersey, and not upon the lex fori

WHY NOT FORI/REMEDY? It is essential in a contract itself. Parol evidence cannot be admitted for the purpose of showing what the contract was and is an essential part of the contract itself, and not a mere incident to the remedy

Stay (or dismissal) of proceedings OR anti-suit injunction

In cases where jurisdiction has been founded as of right (i.e. where in this country, the defendant has been served with proceedings within the jurisdiction), the defendant may now apply to the court to exercise its discretion to stay the proceedings on the ground which is usually calledFORUM NON CONVENIENS

o The plea can never be sustained unless the court is satisfied that there is some other tribunal, having competent jurisdiction, in whichthe case may be tried more suitable for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice

o The question is not one of convenience done, but of the suitability or appropriateness of the relevant jurisdictiono In order to justify a stay, two conditions must be satisfied, one positive and the other negative:

The defendant must satisfy the court that there is another forum to whose jurisdiction he is amenable, in which justice can

be done between the parties at substantially less inconvenience or expense, and The stay must not deprive the plaintiff of a legitimate personal or judicial advantage which would be available to him if he

invoked the jurisdiction of the first court

The law relating to injunctions restraining a party from commencing or pursuing legal proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction as a long history.Certain basic principles are now beyond dispute:

o The jurisdiction is to be exercised when the “ends of justice” require it o Where the court decides to grant an injunction restraining proceedings in a foreign court, its order is directed not against the foreign

court, but against the parties so proceeding or threatening to proceedo It follows that an injunction will only be issued restraining a party who is amenable to the jurisdiction of the court against whom an

injunction will be an effective remedyo Since such an order directly affects the foreign court, the jurisdiction is one which must be exercised with caution

The courts have developed two forms of remedy to control the choice of forum by the parties



o The first and more conventional one is a stay of proceedings – this enables the court of the forum selected by the plaintiff (thedomestic forum) to stay the action at the request of the defendant,if persuaded that the case should be tried elsewhere

o The second is the anti-suit injunction – a more aggressive remedy, which may be granted by the domestic court at the request of adefendant/s, actual or potential, in a foreign suit

In the usual situation, the plaintiff in the domestic court moves to restrain the defendant/s from launching or continuing aproceeding in the courts of another jurisdiction

Occasionally, the defendants in a foreign jurisdiction (who allege that the plaintiff in that jurisdiction has selected aninappropriate forum) seek an injunction from the courts of the alleged inappropriate forum, in which no proceeding ispending, to restrain continuation of the foreign proceedings

While the restraining order operates in personam on the plaintiff in the foreign suit, and not on the foreign court itself, ithas the latter effect and therefore raises serious issues of comity

Although both the remedy of a stay and an injunction have as their main objectives the selection of an appropriate forum for the trial of an action,there is a fundamental difference between them

o In the case of the stay, the domestic court determines for itself whether in the circumstances, it should take jurisdictiono Whereas in the case of the injunction, it in effect determines the matter for the foreign court

- When the defendant’s negligent conduct occurs in one jurisdiction and the plaintiff’s injuries are suffered in another, the p lace of the wrongis considered to be the place where the last event necessary to make the actor liable occurred

- Lex loci delicti commissi (the law of the place where a tort is committed)- In an action brought in one state for injuries done in another, the statutes and decisions of the courts of the latter state must fix the liability-

There are 3 ways in which jurisdiction may be asserted against an out-of-state defendant:o Presence-based jurisdiction – permits jurisdiction over an extra-state defendant who is physically present within the territory of the

courto Consent-based jurisdiction – permits jurisdiction over an extra-state defendant who consents, whether by voluntary submission,

attornment (?) by appearance and defence, or prior agreement to submit disputes to the jurisdiction of the domestic court*Both presence- and consent-based jurisdiction also provide bases for the recognition and enforcement of extra-state judgmentso Assumed jurisdiction – initiated by service of the court’s process out of the jurisdiction. Unlike presence - and consent-based

jurisdiction, assumed jurisdiction does not normally provide a basis for recognition and enforcement

o Where more than one forum is capable of assuming jurisdiction, the most appropriate forum is determined through the “forum no nconveniens” doctrine, which allows a court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction on the grou nd that there is another forum moreappropriate to entertain the action



In cases where jurisdiction has been founded as of right (i.e. where in this country, the defendant has been served with proceedings withinthe jurisdiction), the defendant may now apply to the court to exercise its discretion to stay the proceedings on the ground which is usuallycalled FORUM NON CONVENIENS

Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided: (1) that thePhilippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as tothe law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision.

PHILLIP V EYREFacts

Eyre was the Governor of the Island of Jamaica.

A rebellion in said Island broke out.

Eyre and Others acting under his authority had arrested by force of arms, imprisoner, and inflicted injuries on those who took part in therebellion.

An Act was passed by the Legislature and received Royal assent, which basically absolved Government Authorities from any acts theycommitted during the rebellion because such acts were done in good faith and in furtherance of controlling and stopping the rebellion:o The rebellion had been suppressed and imminent general sacrifice of life thereby averted, that the military, naval, or civil authorities

might, according to the law of ordinary peace, be responsible in person or purse for acts done in good faith for the purpose ofrestoring public peace and quelling the rebellion, and that all persons who in good faith and loyal resolve had acted for the crushing ofthe rebellious outbreak ought to be indemnified and kept harmless for such their acts of loyalty.

o Upon Eyre’s return to England, he was brought before the courts to answer for his actions.

Philipps was one of the persons who took part in the rebellion and filed an action in the English Court complaining of false imprisonmentand other injuries he sustained in the hands of the Eyre and his people.

In response, Eyre stated that the grievances complained of in Philipps action were measures used in the suppression of the rebellion, andwere reasonably and in good faith considered by the defendant to be proper for the purpose of putting an end to, and bona fide done inorder to put an end to, the rebellion, and sowere included in the indemnity.

The Court of Queen’s Bench: Held that Eyre cannot be held liable in England.

Issue/s

WON Phillips has a right of action against Eyre for injuries caused during the martial law period? NONE.

Held The judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for the defendant wasright, and is affirmed.Judgment affirmed.

Ratio

A right of action, whether it arise from contract governed by law of the place or wrong, is equally the creature of the law of the place andsubordinate thereto.o And in a like manner the civil liability arising out of a wrong derives its birth from the law of the place and its character is determined

by that law.o Therefore, an act committed abroad, if valid and unquestionable by the law of the place, cannot, so far as civil liability is concerned,

be drawn in question elsewhere.

As a general rule, in order to found a suit in England for a wrong alleged to have been committed abroad, two conditions must be fulfilled.o First, the wrong must be of such a character that it would have been actionable if committed in England.o Secondly, the act must not have been justifiable by the law of the place where it was done.

In the instant case, the foreign law extinguishes the right of plaintiffs to pursue a claim against Eyre, it is a bar in this country (England)equally as if the extinguishment had been by release of the party, or an act of our own legislature.

Assuming the colonial Act to be valid in Jamaica and a defence there, it could not have the extra-territorial effect of taking away the right ofaction in an English court.o This objection is founded upon a misconception of the true character of a civil or legal obligation and the corresponding right of action.o The obligation is the principal to which a right of action in whatever court is only an accessory, and such accessory, according to the

maxim of law, follows the principal, and must stand or fall therewith.o A right of action, whether it arise from contract governed by the law of the place or wrong, is equally the creature of the law of the

place and subordinate thereto.o The terms of the contract or the character of the subject- matter may show that the parties intended their bargain to be governed by

some other law; but, prima facie, it falls under the law of the place where it was made.o And in like manner the civil liability arising out of a wrong derives its birth from the law of the place, and its character is determined by

that law.o Therefore, an act committed abroad, if valid and unquestionable by the law of the place,cannot, so far as civil liability is concerned, be

drawn in question elsewhere unless by force of some distinct exceptional legislation, superadding a liability other than and besidesthat incident to the act itself.

o In this respect no sound distinction can be suggested between the civil liability in respect of a contract governed by the law of theplace and a wrong.



No foreign legislation could avail to take away civil liability here in respect of acts done abroad; so that, for instance, if a foreign countryafter a rebellion or civil war were to pass a general Act of oblivion and indemnity, burying in one grave all legal memory alike of thehostilities, and even the private retaliations which are the sure results of anarchy and violence, it would, if the argument for the plaintiffprevailed, be competent for a municipal court of any other country to condemn and disregard, as naturally unjust or technically ineffectual,the law of a sovereign state, disposing, upon the same constitutional principles as have actuated our own legislature, of matters arisingwithin its territory-a course which to adopt would be an unprecedented and mischievous violation of the comity of nations.

Analysis

In the present case despite the alleged acts of Eyre, the Court absolved him because of the fact that the English law extinguished the rightof Philipps to pursue any act against the former. Also, the requisites for a case in England to prosper, were not present. Furthermore, sincethe alleged acts were committed in Jamaica, then the Jamaican Court must be the one to try and hear the case filed against Eyre. As saidby the Court, an act committed abroad, if valid and unquestionable by the law of the place, cannot, so far as civil liability is concerned, bedrawn in question elsewhere.

MALDONADOFacts

The deceased was Spanish and domiciled in Spain. He died intestate, leaving no next of kin. The State of Spain claimed a grant ofadministration to the personal estate of the deceased in England as sole and universal heir to her estate by Spanish law, while the TreasurySolicitor of England claimed that the personal estate in England belonged to the Crown as bona vacantia.

Bona vacantia occurs when a person dies and there is no heir who acquires the property left by the decedent by succession. Property isbona vacantia when it becomes heirless property. So the Crown is arguing that the estate of the deceased in the England has becomeheirless property. But the Spanish government is claiming that there being no next of kin, under its law; it has become the sole heir to theestate of Maldonado, precluding the application of bona vacantia.

The lower court decided in favor of Spain.

Issue/s Which forum has the better right to the estate of the deceased?

HeldSpain. Affirmed.

Ratio

The property would only come to the Crown (England) as bona vacantia if the deceased died leaving no successors according to the law of

the foreign domicile (Spain), or if the State of that domicile sought to assert a right to the properly, not as successor to the deceased, but

by a jus regale which the English courts would not recognize as having extraterritorial validity. This is because some countries have as lawthat when a person dies heirless, the property becomes ownerless and the State as a right to confiscate the property under the principle of jus regale.

According to the relevant law of the domicile of the deceased, however, the Spanish State took as ultimus heres and as a true successor,and accordingly the maxim mobilia sequuntur personam applied to entitle the State of Spain to the deceased's property in England. Inshort, Spain did not exercise its right to take the property by virtue of its becoming heirless, but by virtue of it being left as the sole heir ofthe deceased where there is no next of kin.

In applying that maxim there is no valid ground for differentiating between successors who were personally connected with the deceased

and other persons or bodies, including the State, which were by the law of the deceased's domicile constituted successors. Here by the lawof the deceased's domicile the Spanish State was a true successor and was not seeking to exercise its paramount authority as a sovereignState to confiscate ownerless property.

The English courts must recognize the capacity in which the Spanish State claimed and, consequently, the deceased having left a"successor," there was no right in the British Crown to take the estate in England as bona vacantia.

Analysis

The property would only come to the Crown (England) as bona vacantia if the deceased died leaving no successors according to the law of

the foreign domicile (Spain), or if the State of that domicile sought to assert a right to the properly, not as successor to the deceased, but

by a jus regale which the English courts would not recognize as having extraterritorial validity. This is because some countries have as lawthat when a person dies heirless, the property becomes ownerless and the State as a right to confiscate the property under the principle of jus regale.

col samplex rev

Documents