Coxe v. Coxe

• Decision Date: 22 July 1935
• Citation: 180 A. 612,21 Del.Ch. 30
• Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware
• Parties: RUTH GRACIE COXE, v. WALLACE H. COXE

180 A. 612

21 Del.Ch. 30

RUTH GRACIE COXE, v. WALLACE H. COXE

Court of Chancery of Delaware, New Castle

July 22, 1935

BILL TO ENFORCE A SEPARATION AGREEMENT. The case was before the court at a prior stage on demurrer to the bill. The demurrer was overruled (see 20 Del.Ch. 384, 178 A. 104) and the defendant thereafter answered. The complainant excepted to the answer as being insufficient in the particular referred to in the ensuing opinion.

Heard on exceptions to the answer.

Exception to the answer overruled.

Marguerite Dugan Bodziak, for complainant.

William Thomas Knowles, for defendant.

OPINION

THE CHANCELLOR:

When this cause was before the court on demurrer, one of the contentions of the defendant was that the complainant had an adequate remedy at law. The contention rested on the conception that the contract sued on, though void at law in Delaware as being one between husband and wife, was nevertheless a valid contract in all respects in Nevada where, it was stated, the contract was entered into. But as the bill did not show that the place of contracting was in the State of Nevada and furthermore as the law of Nevada was not pleaded in the bill, the contention was not examined on its merits.

The contract was entered into at a time when the complainant and defendant, parties thereto, were husband and wife. But the answer avers that the place where the contract was so entered into was in the State of Nevada, and also avers that the statute of Nevada (Comp. Laws Nev. 1929, § 3373) provides that "a husband and wife * * * may contract with each other respecting their property as if unmarried."

The complainant has excepted to these averments as immaterial and insufficient.

In the opinion heretofore filed on demurrer it was pointed out that the only ground upon which the complainant could maintain the jurisdiction in equity was--that the contract, being one between husband and wife, is void at law and so is not suable in a legal forum. If it was entered into between the parties in Nevada, it now appears, taking of course the answer to be true, that the contract was a valid one when executed notwithstanding the then existing coverture.

In that situation, would the law courts in this State refuse to entertain a suit based on its breach? "The law of the place of contracting determines the capacity to enter into a contract." A. L. I., Restatement, Conflict of Laws, § 333. If a contract is valid in the State in which it is made, the general rule is, "it is deemed valid everywhere, and will sustain an action in the courts of a state whose laws do not permit such a contract." Milliken v. Pratt, 125 Mass. 374, 28 Am. Rep. 241. The case from which this quotation is taken was one where suit was brought at law in Massachusetts upon a contract of guaranty of her husband's debt made by a married woman in Maine, where the law permitted a married woman to enter into such a contract. Notwithstanding the contract when made was invalid under the law of Massachusetts, it was held that an action on the contract could be maintained in Massachusetts. The opinion in that case was a well considered one and is accepted as correctly expressing the law.

The only question, then, that remains for determination in this case is whether or not the answer discloses facts which warrant the conclusion that the contract was made in Nevada. The facts are as follows: The contract is dated August 12 1931. It is not under seal. It was acknowledged by the parties. The complainant's acknowledgment was taken in the State of Nevada on August 12, 1931; the defendant's acknowledgment was taken in...