* Thus, if a woman at the age of nineteen, whose domicil was in Massachusetts, having gone into Vermont (where women are so far of age at eighteen that they may bind themselves at that age for things not necessary), there bought non-necessaries, and gave her note for the price, and while she was there the note was put in suit against her, we do not think that she could interpose the law of Massachusetts in her defence. And if a woman of that age, whose domicil was in Vermont, came into Massachusetts, and there bought non-necessaries, and was sued for the price, we think she could interpose the defence of infancy. If, in the first case, the woman returned to Massachusetts, and the note was sent after her and put in suit there, it might admit of more question whether the law of the forum would not prevail over the law of the place of the contract, and constitute a good defence; or, if in the second case, the woman returned to Vermont, and suit was brought against her there, it might admit of more question whether the law of the forum would now prevail over the law of the place of the contract, and enforce the contract, negativing this defence. But this doubt would be in fact a doubt whether, when the law of the domicil and the law of the place of the contract conflict, the law of the forum may not come in, and decide in favor of the law of the domicil, if that be also the place of the forum, or in favor of the law of the place of the contract, if that be the place of the forum. But we are not satisfied that such would be the rule.

There is another principle which may have a bearing upon this question; for it seems reasonable at least to say that a contract, void or voidable at its inception, cannot be made valid against the will of the party having the right of avoidance, by a mere change of his place, nor can a contract valid and enforceable when and where entered into be made invalid in this way. Any woman over eighteen, buying on credit non-necessaries in Vermont, makes a contract which is valid then and there, and any woman of that age making such a contract in Massachusetts, makes one which is not valid then and there; and these contracts must remain, the first valid and the second invalid, wherever it may be sought to enforce them, unless, in the first case, a foreign law is admitted to destroy the validity of the contract, and in the second case, comes in to give the contract validity and force; and we think a foreign law can do neither of these things.

By the second of the general principles which we presented early in this chapter, the laws of every State have a binding force over all persons and things within its dominion, and contracts are among the things which it thus controls. It must be true, therefore, that these laws govern and determine all contracts made within their territorial scope, or, in other words, that every contract must be construed according to the law of the place of the contract, unless we are at liberty to say one of two things; either that the foreign law affected the contract, and controlled the home law at the time the contract was made or else that it had this effect subsequently. Now to say that the foreign law thus operated upon the contract at its inception, would be to say that a foreign law entered into a foreign and independent State with a power of its own, and there by this power resisted and controlled the home law, and importantly affected the rights of parties who made the contract under the home laws. And this would be giving to this foreign law a power far beyond what it could derive from any principle which can be admitted to belong to the comity of nations. (l) On * the other have attempted to go too far. To define and fix that which cannot in the nature of things be defined and fixed. They seem to have forgotten that they wrote on a question which touched the comity of nations, and that that comity is, and ever must be, uncertain. That it must necessarily depend on a variety of circumstances which cannot be reduced within any certain rule. That no nation will suffer the laws of another to interfere with her own, to the injury of her citizens; that whether they do or not must depend on the condition of the country in which the foreign law is sought to be enforced - the particular nature of her legislation - her policy, and the character of her institutions. That in the conflict of laws; it must be often a matter of doubt which should prevail, and that whenever that doubt does exist, the court which decides will prefer the law of its own country to that of the stranger."

(l) In Saul v. His Creditors, 17 Mart. (La.) 595, the court say, after quoting from Chancellor D'Aguesseau: "If the subject had been susceptible of clear and positive rules, we may safely believe this illustrious man would not have left it in doubt, for if anything be more remarkable in him than his genius and his knowledge, it is the extraordinary fulness and clearness with which he expresses himself on all questions of Jurisprudence. When he, therefore, and so many other men of great talents and learning, are thus found to fail in fixing certain principles, we are forced to conclude that they have failed not from want of ability, but because the matter was not susceptible of being settled on certain principles. They band, if we admit that the contract when made was valid only according to the laws of the country, where it was made, but say that afterwards another law, the law of the domicil of a party, or of the forum before which the question comes, varies the contract in important respects, we say no less than that a law, which the parties in making their contract could not be supposed to contemplate, and were not affected by, afterwards made a new contract for them, or established or discharged relations or obligations between them, against or without their will and consent.

Upon the whole, we are of opinion that the rule which requires that every contract should be construed according to the law of the place where it was made, is very nearly universal. The exceptions we should admit are, principally, those founded upon the possible fact that the law of a State might oppose or vary the law of natural capacity or incapacity, or might permit a contract which could be performed only by acts in another country, which acts would be distinctly and positively prohibited by the law of that country. And even in such cases it might more properly be said, that the contract should be construed according to the law of the place where it was made, but that whenever such construction could make it illegal, it would be for that reason void. But the illegality here meant is not that of an infant's contract for non-necessaries, or the contract of a married woman. When it is said that he or she cannot do this, it is meant only that the law permits a party making such a * contract to treat it as void; not that the law prohibits such parties from making these contracts.

All of these questions are sometimes much complicated with other questions, as where the domicil of the party is, or where was the place in which the contract was made; and they become in this way much more difficult.