Cases on the conflict of laws : selected from decisions of English and American courts . s assured that the dis-position of his property in case of his death could not be controlled oraffected by that will. He died in Pennsylvania. By the law of thatstate a testators marriage is, as to his wife, a revocation of his ex-isting will, and her rights in his property on his death are the same, sofar as that will is concerned, as if he had died intestate. But Dr. Har-rall was not domiciled in that state. Nor was he domiciled here. Hisdomicile, if not in France, was in New York. In my judgment it wasi
Cases on the conflict of laws : selected from decisions of English and American courts . s assured that the dis-position of his property in case of his death could not be controlled oraffected by that will. He died in Pennsylvania. By the law of thatstate a testators marriage is, as to his wife, a revocation of his ex-isting will, and her rights in his property on his death are the same, sofar as that will is concerned, as if he had died intestate. But Dr. Har-rall was not domiciled in that state. Nor was he domiciled here. Hisdomicile, if not in France, was in New York. In my judgment it wasin the former. Though he did not die in this state, and was not dom-iciled here when he died, his personal property is here, and his willwas proved here. This suit is therefore brought here. Had he re-mained in France up to his death, the complainant would have beenentitled to one-half of his personal property She should, under thecircumstances, be decreed to have the same right here. There will bea decree in her favor accordingly. She is entitled to costs, payable outof the estate.^*. ^ DE NICOLS v. CURLIER. (Holise of Lords, 1899, [1900] App. Cas. 21, 69 L. J. Ch. 109.) Earl of HaIvSbury, L. C.^ j\Iy Lords, it is not necessary to state^ with great minuteness how the question in the present appeal is enough to say that two French subjects were married accordingto the laws of France on May 30, 1854. No marriage contract orinstrument in writing was executed by either of the parties. The par-ties lived together, and in the year 1863 they came to England, and inthe year 1865 the husband obtained the status of a naturalized Britishsubject. The whole dispute turns on the question whether the changed domi-cile and naturalization of the husband aftected the wifes rights so asto give the husband the power to dispose of all the movable propertyby will instead of being restricted to the power of disposing of onlyone half of it, as he undoubtedly would have been so restricted byF
Size: 1068px × 2340px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bo, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1900, bookidcasesonconflicto00lore
