Emory v. Grenough

3 U.S. 369, 1 L. Ed. 640, 3 Dall. 369, 1797 U.S. LEXIS 206
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 14, 1798
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 3 U.S. 369 (Emory v. Grenough) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Emory v. Grenough, 3 U.S. 369, 1 L. Ed. 640, 3 Dall. 369, 1797 U.S. LEXIS 206 (1798).

Opinion

Emory versus Grenough.

The argument of the caufe had been confiderably advanced, •when a contagious fever made its appearance again in.Pbila-' delfhia, and the bufinefs of the court was unavoidably* fufpend-ed. But at February Term,' 1797, the court having decided, *370 in thecafeof Bingbamverfus Cabot, etal. thatinorderto fuftain the jurifdiéton of the Federal Courtj it mull be fet forth in the procefs, that the parties are citizens of different ftates ; and that form having been-omitted in the prefent fu.it, this and fe-veral other writs of error were {truck off the docket.

It appeared, during the difeuflion, that a great diverfiry exi-fted. in ’ the law and practice of the feveral States, upon this fubj^ct;- anil -that adeciiion, directly contrary to that of the Circuit Court of jyiaiiachlti fetts, had been given in the Circuit Court of Rhode llland, compeled p Judge PVUfwi and the Diftrict J udge,

It is not wondertul that we do not-iind any thing upon this fubjeft in the Roman law; when the government of the Roman people, was ex-: tended over a great part of the habitable'globe, the frequent conflift and contrariety-of laws could not occur; the rule was one and the fame.

rights of the other governments, or their citizens.

Whoev.cr makes a contsaét in any particular place, is fubjeéted to the laws of the place as a temporary citizen. '

A Batavian makes a will in Holland according to the law pf the place, under which the goods, fi’tuated and found in Friezeland are demanded oug(vt..the Judges of Friezeland to grant the demand founded upon the will made in Holland ? The laws of Holland cannot .bind the people of Friezeland, therefore to decide according to the firlt maxim, the .will would not be. good in-Frieielaml ; but by the third maxim its validity is fupported, and by that judgment is given in its favour. ButaFriffan *372 makes a journey intoHoliaud,and 1 litre executes a will according to. the law of tli e place., Conti ary-to" the law- of Friezeland, and -returns and dies there : Is the will good i it is good according tp the feCond maxim ¡'becaufe while he was in Holland, -though bur for a temporary piir-’ pofe^ he was bound by the law of the place, and an aft good; where 'done, ought r.ci prevail every where, according to the third maxim, and that, wiilhoiit any diftinftion between moveable and .immoveable ef-tate, and fo.thciuiy is praftifed. On the'Other hand, the Friziáñ makes-his will in his own .country, before a notary, with two witneffes, it is carried into Holland,- and. demand made of the goods found there : It will not be granted, becaufe not made .in a valid manner at itrft, being made contrary to the laws of the place. It Would be the" fame thing if the’Batavian, was to make fuch a will in Friezeland, altliough-jii Holland'); woul.d have been good ; for it is true, that fuc-h a deed would; not be good in its commencement, for the.reafons juft Hated. .

In like manner if a Brabanter, who fliould marry under a difpenfation from the Pop.e within the prohibited degrees, fhould remo.ve hére, the •marriage would be confidered as valid: yet if a Frizian marries the daughter of his brother in Brabant,.and celebrates the nuptials there, returning here he would not be acknowledged as a married man,, becaufe, in this way our law might be eluded by. uad examples,, and this induces ' me to make an obfervation upon this point. It often happens,- that young people deiirous of forming improper connexions,- and to fanftion their illicit intercourfe with the ceremony of marriage', go into Eaft Friezeland, or. other places, in which the confentof curators or guardians is - not necéflary to marriage, according to the- Roman laws. There they celebrate marriage and prefencly return to their country— 1 think, that this is a manifell fraud or evaiion of- our'iaw, and therefore that the magiilrates here, are Bot obliged by the l^w of nations to acknowledge fuch marriages'or to hold them as vdlid ; efpecially-with refpeft to thofe^ who tranfgrefs and evade-their own laws knowingly' and intentionálly. Moreover, not- only, the contrail of marriage itfelf,. properly and regularly celebrated in one place, is good in all places, hut the rights and incidents which attend it where celebrated, attend it e-lfe— where. In'Holland married people have a communion of all their g.iods, uniefs it be oiherwife exprefsly covenanted by them.; this will )ie the effect, as to goods lituatcdin Friezeland, although there marriage only occalions a-common rifq'ue of profit and lofs,notof che goods thcmfelves; therefore the Frisians remain after the marriage each one, bothhulband and wife, feparate owners of their goods lituaced in Holland! When however the married couple -remove from the one Hate or.-province to ih.éother, whatever is afterwards-acquired or falls to either, is not iu common, but held by diftinft.right, and what was before made common between them, will be either in common or otherwife as they direft : as Sandius lays it down who tells us, B. a. dc is tit. 5. def. 10. there was a difpute among the learned doftors whether immoveable.goods, litu-ueJ in another country, were to be affected and regulated by the rules as we have laid it down.

The place, however, where 2he contraft is entered into, is not to be excluii veiycqulidered :*ifthe parties haclrin contemplation another place at'the time of the contraft, the laws of the latter, will be.pieferrcd iu the coiiftruftion of the contraft. - ■

There are perfons who utiderftand tliefe perfonal rights to the following extent, that whoever, in a certain place, is of full age, or a minor, a child-, or put'out of rhe controul of the father, will-enjoy’ the fame fights, anil be fubjeft-to the fame difabilities, as in the place where he became fuch a character, or was fo reputed ; and whether the fame thing would, or would not, have happened in his-own country,-ftill that the fame confequence neceiiarily follows* It appears to me, s that this is laying down, the rule too broad, and would fubjeft. ns to a f>ur-thenfome'inconveni'enc by the laws of our neighbours. .An. example will make liie thing plain :'A child hot emancipated or exempted from the power of his Father, and who has nor ceafed to be one of his family* cannot make a wil 1 in Fnexfand* . Hc>gocs into-Holland, and there makes a will—is it. valid ? I think it valid iu Holland, by. the fir ft and fecond rules, that the’ laws regulate as to all thofe .within its limits, nor is it rea fbnablc, that the people there,.refpeftinga.bufmefs done there, neglecting their own laws, ftiould judge according to the, law's of other people, £-⅛1 that-wil' would not be valid in Frlezcland, by the third rule, beca.ufc b”y thu-t-mc • ¿ nothing would be more .eafy than to elude our laws, and our citizens might .elude them everyday. Bnt in other places out of Frier,eland, the will would be valid even where by their laws a child while one of the Father’s family could not make a will,, becauie there .Ibe reafon would'not apply, thaY their citizen had gone to Holland to elude-their law hi ftaudem legis».

The fame rule held with regaid to the fucccffion to an inteftate eilate. ■—If the dcceafed was,Father of a family, whole property was in'diffe-■rei.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Topfire Limited v. Cook
E.D. California, 2025
Carlton Gunn v. Continental Casualty Company
968 F.3d 802 (Seventh Circuit, 2020)
Rancher, Danny Ray
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Jan K. Voda, M.D. v. Cordis Corporation
476 F.3d 887 (Federal Circuit, 2007)
Hobson v. Travelstead (In Re Travelstead)
227 B.R. 638 (D. Maryland, 1998)
Moake v. Source Intern. Corp.
623 A.2d 263 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1993)
Quijada v. Unifrutti of America Inc.
12 Pa. D. & C.4th 225 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1991)
Societe Nat. Ind. Aero. v. US Dist. Court
482 U.S. 522 (Supreme Court, 1987)
In Re Chase
141 S.E. 471 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1928)
Hill v. Walker
167 F. 241 (Eighth Circuit, 1909)
Scott v. McNeal
154 U.S. 34 (Supreme Court, 1894)
Andrews v. Herriot
4 Cow. 508 (New York Supreme Court, 1825)
M'millan v. M'neill
17 U.S. 209 (Supreme Court, 1819)
Walsh v. Nourse
5 Binn. 381 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1813)
Caldwell and Wife v. Maxwell and Wife
2 Tenn. 102 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1808)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 U.S. 369, 1 L. Ed. 640, 3 Dall. 369, 1797 U.S. LEXIS 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emory-v-grenough-scotus-1798.