spect to the validity and effect of transactions affecting the same, or property therein, by that law which gives them existence, subject, however, to such further restrictions as are imposed by the law of the place where the same are delivered or transferred.

Story, Conf. of L., § 383.

From the nature of the stock of a corporation, which is created by and under the authority of a State, it is necessarily, like every other attribute of the corporation, to be governed by the local law of that State, and not by the local law of any foreign State. Black v. Zacharie, 3 Howard's U. S. Supr. Ct. Rep., 483; Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 New York Rep., 9. As to the national character of public funds, see Commissioners of Charitable Donations v. Devereux, 13 Simon's Rep., 29, 30.

Local character of shipping.

573. Property in shipping is governed in respect to the title thereto, the modes of transfer, or of charging, or otherwise disposing of the same,' between living persons,' by the law of the nationality of the vessel, as defined by Chapter XX.

1 In Hooper v. Guman, (Law Rep., 2 Chancery App., 282,) it was held that although legal title to a ship must be determined by the law of its nationality, a foreign contract of sale thereof, and the effect of the intervention of the title of a bona fide purchaser, for value, in a foreign country, must be governed by the law of the foreign country.

2 In Thomas v. Kosciusko, 11 New York Legal Observer, 38, it is said that the transmission on the death of the owner is governed by the law of his domicil.

Story mentions as another exception, beside those mentioned in the last two Articles, the case of property in custody of the law under revenue acts; but it may be doubted whether such custody should affect the ques tion of title. It rather relates only to the lien maintained by the government, and a transfer according to foreign law subject to such lien might be valid.

Effect of matrimonial settlement.

574. The rights of property in movables, as affected by marriage, are governed by the express contract of the parties, subject to the provisions of Chapter XLVI., on CONTRACTS.' Until such contract is made, or to the extent that the contract is inoperative,' such rights are regulated by the next article.

1 Bishop, on Marriage and Divorce, 1, § 404; Story, Confl. of L., § 184. The exception is to be understood that the laws of the place where the rights are sought to be enforced, do not prohibit such arrangements. Story, Confl. of Laws, § 188.

Story, Confl. of L., § 185; Westlake, Private Intern. Law, § 372.

Rights of property of persons married without a settlement.

575. The rights of property in movables, whether owned at the time of marriage or afterwards acquired, as affected by marriage, except in respect of succession, are governed by the law of the matrimonial domicil. But upon a change of domicil, the right, as to all subsequent acquisitions, is determined by the law of the new domicil.'

1 Westlake, Private Intern Law, § 366.

2 Story, Confl. of L., § 187.

Matrimonial property after change of domicil.

576. After a change by married persons, from the matrimonial domicil, the mutual rights of the husband and wife acquired subsequently thereto in each other's movable property, which arise from the marriage rela tion, and are dependent upon its continuance, are determined by the law applicable to their transactions, or by the law of their new domicil, according to the provisions of this Code, except as otherwise provided by some actual contract between the parties as to such rights.

This, so far as the law of domicil is concerned, is the American rule. Story, Confl. of L., § 187, (§ 171, b, et seq., Redfield's ed.;) and is supported by Windscheid Pandekten, I., § 35, p. 78, note. To the contrary, West lake, Priv. Intern. Law, § 366, et seq. The supposition of a tacit consent, or submission, of the parties to the law of the matrimonial domicil, is certainly open to the objection that, even assuming the parties to have any intention on the subject, there is nothing to show that it was directed to the law of the matrimonial, rather than to that of the subsequent, domicil.

"Matrimonial domicil" defined.

577. The matrimonial domicil is the domicil first established by the husband and wife together; or, if none such be established, it is that of the husband at the time of the marriage.

See Story, Confl. of L., § 193.

Abandonment.

578. The matrimonial domicil is not changed by an abandonment of one party by the other.

Bonati v. Welsh, 24 New York Rep., 157.

66

CHAPTER XLII.

TRANSFER.

ARTICLE 579. "Transfer" defined.

580. Voluntary transfer.

581. Validity of transfers.
582. Jurisdiction over movables.

583. Protection of creditors.

Transfer" defined.

579. The term "transfer," as used in this Code, means an act of the parties, or of the law, by which the title to property is conveyed from one living person to another.' It includes the creation and the extinguishment, by such act, of an interest in movables or immovables.

1 Civil Code, reported for New York, § 458.

Voluntary transfer.

580. A voluntary transfer is a transfer by act of the parties, without compulsion of law, whether with or without consideration.

Validity of transfers.

581. Subject to the next two articles, and to the provisions of Chapter XLVI., on CONTRACTS, a transfer of movables, whether voluntary or involuntary, if valid by the law of the place where it is made, is valid everywhere.

Where personal property is seized and sold under an attachment, or other writ, issuing from a court of the State where the property is, the question of the liability of the property to be sold under such a writ, must be determined by the law of that State, notwithstanding the domi cil of all the claimants to the property may be in another State. In a suit in any other State growing out of such seizure and sale, the effect of the proceedings by which it was sold, on the title to the property, must be determined by the law of the State where the proceedings were had. Green v. Van Buskirk, 5 Wallace's U. S. Supreme Ct. Rep., 307.

Jurisdiction over movables.

582. A transfer of movables, which is prohibited by

the law of the nation within whose exclusive jurisdic tion they are situate, is void every where.

See Article 571. It may be thought better in lieu of the words "prohibited by ", to insert "forbidden by an express provision of".

Protection of creditors.

583. A nation may give to any creditors who are subject to its jurisdiction, a lien on movables in possession or in action, situated within its exclusive jurisdiction, in preference to those claiming under a foreign transfer not made in conformity with its own law.

The three preceding Articles are intended to present a simple and uniform rule for determining the validity of foreign transfers of movables. The general rule that the personal statute governs movables, has been discussed under Article 571; and the rule there proposed is in harmony with the above Article 581, which makes the law of the place of the transaction the general rule. This is subject, however to any prohibition of the positive or customary law of the nation where the movables are situated. Black v. Zacharie, 3 Howard U. S. Supreme Ct. Rep., 483; Warren . Copelin, 45 Massachusetts Rep., 594; Story's Conft. of Laws, §§ 383-4; Farrington . Allen, 6 Rhode Island (3 Ames) Rep., 449; Parsons v. Lyman, 30 New York Rep., 103; Caskie v. Webster, 2 Wallace Jr. U. S. Circ. Ct. Rep., 131.

A transfer made at the domicil of the maker, and efficient to transfer his property there, does not transfer his movables situated in another State by the law of which such transfer is regarded as inconsistent with public policy. Varnum v. Camp, 1 Green (New Jersey) Rep., 326.

The rule that personal property shall be transferred according to the law of the domicil of the owner, and not the law of the rei site, does not apply when the rights of residents in the State where the property is situate will be affected by it. Moore v. Bonnell, 2 Vroom, (New Jersey) Rep., 90; Bentley . Whittemore, 18 New Jersey Chan. Rep.. 366.

The exception for the protection of creditors stated in the above Article, turns, not on the validity of the transfer, but on the superior power of a State, acting through its courts, to apply property within its limits to the satisfaction of debts due to its citizens.

The customary law of a State where movables are situated, in reference to the formalities attending a transfer, will not be applied by the tribunals of such State against a transfer valid by the law of the place where the maker was domiciled and all the parties to the controversy are domiciled, if the defect of form does not prejudice the citizens of the State where the movables are situated. Noble . Smith, 6 Rhode Island (3 Ames) Rep., 446.

A transfer of movables situate in one State, made between persons domiciled in another State, which is valid by the law of the place of domicil, may be treated as valid against other persons domiciled in the same State, although it is defective in point of form according to the

law of the State in which the movables are situate. See Rhode Island Central Bank v. Danforth, 80 Massachusetts (14 Gray) Rep., 123.

Where there is a conflict between the laws of different States, all that a debtor can reasonably be required to do is to make his assignment in good faith, and in accordance with the law of the State in which he lives and where the principal part of his property is situated. The courts of such State will give effect to the assignment on all the property within their jurisdiction, notwithstanding it may be inoperative as to real property in another State. Trink v. Buss, 45 New Hampshire Rep.. 325.

In Pardo v. Bingham, (Law Rep., 6 Equity Cas., 485,) it was held that the English courts should not give priority over all other creditors, to a claim against an Englishman, secured to a foreign creditor by an instrument, which, by being registered pursuant to the foreign law, was entitled by that law, to such priority.

In the case of South Boston Iron Company v. Boston Locomotive Works & Trustee (51 Maine Rep., 585,) this principle was extended to protect the claim of a foreign creditor, who was a citizen of the State where the discharge was granted, but, who, by the law of the State, where the question arose and assets were attached, was entitled to proceed against such assets as well as if he were a citizen.

The enforcement of the lien, given by this Article, is provided for by Part VI., on the ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

ARTICLE 584.

CHAPTER XLIII.

SUCCESSION.

Succession" defined.

585. Law governing succession to movables.
586. Law governing succession to immovables.
587. Rights of succession, when not affected by
foreign character of property.

588. Incidents of local burdens.

589. Failure of heritable blood.

"Succession" defined.

584. The term "succession," as used in this Code, means the coming in of another to take the property of one who dies without disposing of it by will.

The term "descent.” hitherto chiefly used in the law of England and of the United States to denote the devolution of an inheritance, was derived from the ancient principle of the English law that an inheritance could never ascend and pass from son to father, but must descend or pass to descendants.

But as the American law allows property to pass in both ways, there