423 PE»BEAL EBPOBTEB. �where they are incurrçd. Story Conflict of Laws, §§ 101-102; Wharton, § 115. �That this contrariety of opinion still exista is shown by a very recent case in England, (Sattomeyer v. De Barros,) de- cided by the Ligh court of justice, in which Sir James Haunen takes occasion to eriticise the views expressed by the lord justices, in the court of appeals, in the same case. Upon an appeal from the decision of Sir E. Pillimore, Sir James Haunen says: "The lord justices appear to have laid down as a principle of law a proposition which was much wider in its terms than was necessary for the determination of the case before them. It is there expressed : 'It is a well-recog- nized principle of law that the question of personal inca- pacity to enter into any contract is to be decided by the law of domicile.* And, again: 'As in other contraots, so in that of marriage, personal capacity must depend on the law of domicile." It is, of course, competent for the court of ap- peals to lay down a principle which, if it forma the basis of the judgment of that court, must, unless it be disclaimed by the house of lorda, be binding on ail future cases. But I trust I may be permitted, without disrespect, to say that the principle thus laid down bas not hitherto been 'well recog- nized.' On the contrary, it appears to me to be a novel principle, for which, up to the present time, there bas been no English authority. What authority there is seems to be dis- tinctly the other way. �"Thia is the case of Meade v. Roherîs, 3 Exch. 183. The contract on which defendant was sued was made in Scotland. The defence was that the defendant was an infant; but Lord Eldon held the defence bad, saying : ' If the law of Scotland is that such a contract as the present could not be enforced against an infant, it should bave been given in evidence. The law of the country where the contract arose must gov- ern the contract.' Sir E. Simpson, in the case of Schrim- shire v. Schrimshire, 2 Cons. 395, when dealing with the sub- ject, says: 'These authorities show that ail contracta are to be considered according to the laws of the country where they are made; and the practice of civilized countries has been ����
