Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 34 views

    Ruhe v. Buck Report

    Uploaded by

    Aleana Cecilia Bantolo
    The document discusses whether a court is required to enforce a judgment against a married woman from another state if it would not enforce the same judgment against its own citizens. It analyzes case law regarding conflicts of law and the validity and enforcement of contracts across state lines. The majority found the attachment proceedings against the married woman void, while the dissent argued she should be treated as a feme sole with respect to such prior contracts and judgments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ruhe v. Buck Report

    Uploaded by

    Aleana Cecilia Bantolo
    34 views12 pages
    The document discusses whether a court is required to enforce a judgment against a married woman from another state if it would not enforce the same judgment against its own citizens. It analyzes case law regarding conflicts of law and the validity and enforcement of contracts across state lines. The majority found the attachment proceedings against the married woman void, while the dissent argued she should be treated as a feme sole with respect to such prior contracts and judgments.

    Original Description:

    Report by Aleana Bantolo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses whether a court is required to enforce a judgment against a married woman from another state if it would not enforce the same judgment against its own citizens. It analyzes case law regarding conflicts of law and the validity and enforcement of contracts across state lines. The majority found the attachment proceedings against the married woman void, while the dissent argued she should be treated as a feme sole with respect to such prior contracts and judgments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    34 views12 pages

    Ruhe v. Buck Report

    Uploaded by

    Aleana Cecilia Bantolo
    The document discusses whether a court is required to enforce a judgment against a married woman from another state if it would not enforce the same judgment against its own citizens. It analyzes case law regarding conflicts of law and the validity and enforcement of contracts across state lines. The majority found the attachment proceedings against the married woman void, while the dissent argued she should be treated as a feme sole with respect to such prior contracts and judgments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 12

    RUHE V.

    BUCK
    124 Mo. 178 (1894)

    prepared by Aleana Cecilia P. Bantolo


    MISSOURI DAKOTA

    ATCHISON COUNTY,
    KANSAS
    MISSOURI
    A judgment obtained against a married woman in a suit

    by attachments is a nullity. (Gage v. Gates, Lincoln v.

    Rowe)

    "[We] do not admit a recovery of a personal judgment

    against a feme covert in an action at law."

    DAKOTA
    A married woman can enter into a contract of

    partnership with her husband and become bound for the

    debts of that partnership. A married woman can contract

    and sue and be sued.


    Is this state required, out of a spirit of

    comity, to award a nonresident a remedy

    at war with her own policy, and one which

    she constantly denied to her own citizens?


    When the question is settled that the

    contract of the parties is legal, and what

    is the true interpretation of the language

    employed by the parties in forming it, the

    lex loci ceases its functions, and the lex

    fori steps in, and determines the time, the

    mode, and the extent of the remedy.’


    (Sherman v. Gassett, Chenot v. Lefevre)
    Generally speaking, the validity of a contract is

    to be decided by the law of the place where it is

    made. *** If valid there, it is by the general law

    of nations– jure gentium – held valid everywhere,

    by the tacit or implied consent of the parties.

    The rule is founded, not merely in the

    convenience, but in the necessities, of nations;

    for otherwise it would be impracticable for them

    to carry on an extensive intercourse and

    commerce with each other. The whole system of

    agencies, of purchases and sales, of mutual

    credits, and of transfers of negotiable

    instruments, rests on this foundation.


    The rule which recognizes the binding

    force of the contract where made has

    never gone to the extent of attaching to it

    the local remedies, and carrying them into

    another jurisdiction, but it is left to each

    nation and state to enforce such a

    contract according to its own laws.


    A purchaser's rights ought not to depend

    upon the accidental circumstance of the

    place of the execution of the contract

    upon which the judgment is based. Our

    courts administer justice without

    distinction, according to the modes

    prescribed by the state, and those who

    seek them must take such remedies as are

    prescribed.
    Matters bearing upon the execution, the

    interpretation, and the validity of a

    contract are determined by the law of the

    place where the contract is made.


    Matters connected with its performance

    are regulated by the law prevailing at the

    place of performance.
    Matters respecting the remedy, such as

    bringing of suits, admissibility of

    evidence, and statutes of limitation,

    depend upon the law of the place where


    the suit was brought.
    It follows that the circuit court properly

    held that the proceedings by attachment

    against Mrs. Buck were void, and hence

    presented no obstacle to the purchase by

    Trout and Thompson, and its judgment is

    affirmed.
    J. SHERWOOD DISSENT
    This must be so, or else the acknowledgment of the validity of the

    contracts would be but a barren and idle ceremony, conferring no

    benefits and affording no remedy; because if, in this state, Mrs.

    Buck be permitted to assert her coverture as a defense to such

    contracts, she thereby overthrows the force and effect of the law

    under which those contracts were made and those judgments

    recovered. We hold, then, that Mrs. Buck, as to such contracts,

    etc., already mentioned, occupies the attitude before this court

    of a feme sole, suable as such in every point and particular, as if

    she were discovert. For this reason, our laws, which do not admit

    a recovery of a personal judgment against a feme covert in an

    action at law, do not apply, and were not intended to apply, to

    such a case, as will be more fully seen later on.

    You might also like