Wheeler v. Constantine
| Decision Date | 18 June 1878 |
| Citation | 39 Mich. 62 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Elizabeth H. Wheeler v. Louis A. Constantine |
Submitted June 5, 1878
Error to Lenawee.
Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.
Judgment affirmed with costs.
Walker & Weaver for plaintiff in error. The notes of a married woman domiciled in Indiana are void (Coats v. McKee, 26 Ind. 223; O'Daily v. Morris, 31 Ind. 111; Kautrowitz v. Prather, id., 92; Higgins v. Willis, 35 Ind. 371; Hasheagen v. Specker, 36 Ind. 413; Jenkins v. Flinn, 37 Ind. 349; Hodson v. Davis, 43 Ind. 258; Brick v. Scott, 47 Ind. 299) even though payable in Michigan, Story Confl. Laws, 66; and are void everywhere, Martin v. Dwelly, 6 Wend. 13; Garnier v. Poydras, 13 La. 177; Wilder's Succession, 22 La. Ann., 219: 2 Amer. 721; Hyde v. Goodnow, 3 Comst. 267; Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 338; Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. 71; 2 Kent's Com., § 31; nor could she authorize an agent to make notes, Webber v. Howe, 36 Mich. 150; Armitage v. Widoe, id., 124.
Stacy & Underwood for defendant in error. The validity of a contract is generally determined by the law of the place where it is made, Story Confl. Laws, §§ 242, 279; Pearsall v. Dwight, 2 Mass. 89; Willings v. Consequa, 1 Pet. C. C., 317; Smith v. Mead, 3 Conn. 253; Andrews v. Pond, 13 Pet. 65; Broughton v. Bradley, 36 Ala. 689; Loan Co. v. Towner, 13 Conn. 249; Maguire v. Pingree, 30 Me. 508;Pitkin v. Thompson, 13 Pick. 64; Sherrill v. Hopkins, 1 Cow. 103; Thompson v. Ketcham, 8 Johns. 189; but where the contract is to be performed elsewhere, its general validity, nature, obligation and interpretation are to be governed by the law of the place of performance, 2 Kent's Com., 393-4, 459; Story Confl. Laws, § 280; Thompson v. Ketcham, 4 Johns. 285; Kanaga v. Taylor, 7 Ohio St., 134; Denny v. Williams, 5 Allen 1; Herschfield v. Dexel, 12 Ga. 582; Boyd v. Ellis, 11 Ia. 97; the place where a note is delivered is the place of its execution for the purpose of deciding what law governs it, Butler v. Myer, 17 Ind. 77.
In this case plaintiff in error claims freedom from liability on certain notes made by her for goods purchased, because she insists that as a married woman residing in Indiana she was disqualified from contracting in Michigan or elsewhere in that way.
We do not find in the record any evidence that the laws of Indiana disqualify her. If any such laws exist they should have been proven in the circuit court. We can only review such matters as that court has acted on, and we cannot reverse a judgment upon grounds not based on evidence introduced below. We cannot presume that there was anything which would make such notes void when our laws authorize them. Worthington v. Hanna, 23 Mich. 530.
We do not wish to be understood as intimating that our laws would not govern these notes at any rate, as made in Michigan. That point we do not decide because it is not required by the record.
Judgment is affirmed with costs.
The other Justices concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palmer Nat. Bank v. Van Doren
...of contracting controls on the question of the capacity of the parties to contract. Bissell v. Lewis, 4 Mich. 450;Wheeler v. Constantine, 39 Mich. 62, 33 Am. Rep. 355;State Bank of Eldorado v. Maxson, 123 Mich. 250, 82 N. W. 31,81 Am. St. Rep. 196;Millar v. Hilton, 189 Mich. 635, 155 N. W. ......
- Tilden v. Young