Cases on the conflict of laws : selected from decisions of English and American courts . orce and Separation, §§ 841-906. Continental Law.—(a) Form.—The rule locus regit actum , Art. 170, Civ. Code (see. also, article 171, Civ. Code): App. Douai, , 1904 (2 Darras, 189); App. Douai, Nov. 18, 1903 (S. 1906, 1, 161). Ger-many, Art. 11, Law lutr. Civ. Code. Italy, Art. 9, Prel. Disp. Civ. Code; , Civ. Code; Cass. Palermo, Aug. 5, 1905 (34 Clunet, 849). It is suffi-cient, however, if the form required by the national law be obsen^ed. Ger-many, Art. 11, Law Intr. Civ.
Cases on the conflict of laws : selected from decisions of English and American courts . orce and Separation, §§ 841-906. Continental Law.—(a) Form.—The rule locus regit actum , Art. 170, Civ. Code (see. also, article 171, Civ. Code): App. Douai, , 1904 (2 Darras, 189); App. Douai, Nov. 18, 1903 (S. 1906, 1, 161). Ger-many, Art. 11, Law lutr. Civ. Code. Italy, Art. 9, Prel. Disp. Civ. Code; , Civ. Code; Cass. Palermo, Aug. 5, 1905 (34 Clunet, 849). It is suffi-cient, however, if the form required by the national law be obsen^ed. Ger-many, Art. 11, Law Intr. Civ. Code. Italy, Art. 9, Prel. Disp. Civ. Code. Cer-tain exceptions to the rule locus regit actiun exist. In Germany no mar-riage can be celebrated except according to the form prescribed by Ger-man law. Article 13, Law Intr. Civ. Code. In France it is established lawthat, if Frenchmen resort to another jurisdiction for the purpose of e^adiugFrench law, the marriage will not be recognized, notwithstanding it wascelebrated in accordance with the formal requirements of the local (Part 2 ^ ^ * SECTION 2.—DIVORCE. • LE MESURIER v. LE MESURIER. 1 Committee of the Privy Council, 1895. L. R. App. Cas. 517.) Appeal from the Supreme Court of Ceylon dismissing appellantslibel for divorce on the ground of lack of jurisdiction! Appellant wasan Ei^glTsHman by birth and at the time when this action was institutedretained his English domicil of origin. The marriage with the re-spondent, a Frenchwoman, had taken place in England. Their residence from the date of their marriage until the commence-ment of this suit had been in Ceylon, but neither was domiciled of the respondents except the wife were residents of Ceylon andnone of the matrimonial offenses charged had been committed withinthe jurisdiction of the courts of Ceylon.^^ Cass. July 5, 1905 (33 Clunet, 1145); Cass. Jan. 3, 1906 (S. 1906, 1, 142);Trib. 1st Inst. Tunis, Feb. 27, 1907 (35 Clunet, 496). Tbe
Size: 2178px × 1148px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bo, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1900, bookidcasesonconflicto00lore
