Union Nat. Bank v. Hartwell

• Decision Date: 01 May 1888
• Citation: 4 So. 156,84 Ala. 379
• Parties: UNION NAT. BANK v. HARTWELL ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

4 So. 156

84 Ala. 379

UNION NAT. BANK v. HARTWELL ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 1, 1888

Appeal from chancery court, Mobile county; THOMAS W. COLEMAN, Judge.

The bill was filed by the appellant, the Union National Bank, of New Orleans, La., against Julia Hartwell, a resident of the city of New Orleans, the Mobile Mutual Insurance Company, of Mobile, the Citizens' Mutual Insurance Company, and the assignee of the said last-named insurance company. The purpose of the bill was to have certain pledges of stock foreclosed, which were described as 50 shares of the capital stock of the Mobile Insurance Company and certain other shares of the capital stock of the Citizens' Mutual Insurance Company. These corporations have their principal place of business in Mobile, and were chartered under the laws of the state of Alabama. The pledges, or shares of stock, were the property of Julia Hartwell, by gift or sale from her husband, William Hartwell, now deceased, and which sale or gift was made to her after their removal from Alabama to Louisiana, according to the testimony, although the bill alleged that it was made prior to their removal. The pledge was made to the complainant by the husband, William Hartwell under a power of attorney signed by his wife, and to secure to the complainant the husband's debt for money borrowed by him from complainant. The transactions connected with the borrowing and pledging took place in New Orleans. The stock after being pledged, had not been transferred on the books of the companies. The prayer of the bill was that the pledges of the stock be foreclosed; that the stock be sold for the payment of the debt to the complainant; that the insurance companies be required to make proper entries and transfers on their books; and for general relief. On the hearing the cause was submitted on pleadings and proof, and the chancellor dismissed the bill, and this decree of the chancellor is here assigned as error.

Hannis Taylor, for appellant.

G B. Clarke and F. B. Clarke, for respondents.

CLOPTON J.

The validity of the pledge of the stock in controversy depends on the capacity of Mrs. Hartwell, while a married woman, to give her husband a power of attorney to pledge the same under the circumstances of this case. The first question for decision is, what law-whether the law of Alabama, in which state the stock has a situs, or the law of Louisiana, where was the domicile of her husband, and where the contract was made-fixes and determines her rights to the stock, and governs her capacity to give the power of attorney. The evidence shows that it was not transferred to her by her husband until after they had removed from Alabama, and had acquired a domicile in Louisiana, disproving the allegation of the bill in respect to the time of the transfer. The power of attorney was executed, and the pledge was made and completed by the delivery of the certificates in the latter state. The statutes of this state declare stock in an incorporated company to be personal property, except so far as it is otherwise controlled by the local regulations. Wherefore it is only necessary to state the general rules applicable, and which govern the capacity of a married woman to make contracts in respect to her separate personal property, when it is situated in a county other than that of the domicile of her husband. The general rule is that in such case the law of the domicile of the husband governs, unless the property, from its peculiar nature, necessarily has an implied locality, or unless the contract is made in the country where the property is situate. If a married woman has capacity, by the law of the domicile, to make contracts, her contracts so made will be valid in every other country; and if by the law of the domicile she is deprived of such capacity, her incapacity exists in relation to all her contracts, when made at the place of the domicile, though in reference to property in another country. Story, Confl. Law, §§ 66, 66 a. It is insisted that stock in an incorporated company...