CAMPBELL V. CRAMPTON. 421 �another place or -where brought in question elsewlieie. In disposing of the many vexed questions that arise under the qualifications of the general rules the courts are frequently obliged to fall back upon the principle that only such claims will be regarded as having a legal foundation as are main- tainable in the place where the suit is brought. Wharton, § 401. [0] �In the present case the question arises whether the validity of the contract, as respects the capacity of the parties to it, depends upon the law of Alabama, where the contract waa made, or of New York, where it was to be performed. Al- though the laws of Alabama do not, in terms, incapacitate persons related, as are these parties, from agreeing to marry each other, the statute does incapacitate them from contract- ing the marriage relation. Neither party could acquire any rights or be subjected to any liabilities by the agreement, because of the statutory disability. To all intents and pur- poses the agreement was void, because of the disability of the parties by the laws of Alabama, unless it is saved because it was to be performed in New York. �As to the capacity of parties to enter into a contract, it must be accepted as the general rule that the law of the place where the contract is made must be the test. Story Conflict of Laws, § 103. The right of every state to prescribe the conditions which determine the personal status of its own citizens is unquestioned. 1 Burge Col. & For. Laws, 196. But the most contradietory opinions prevail as to the extra- territorial operation of these conditions. By some of the authorities it is held that when a statute of domicile confers, abridges or destroys capacity, whether this capacity be gen- erally for the possession of rights or specially for the exercise of business, then such status attaches to the subject wherever he may stray, and is to be regarded as conclusive by all for- eign courts. Wharton, § 91 ; 2 Parsons Cont. (5th Ed.) § 572 ; Story, § 65. But the resuit of the English and American authorities is to the contrary, and the incapacity of the domi- cile of the party is not permitted to shield him from obliga- tions which he could otherwise lawfully assume at the place ����
