sita were generally to prevail in regard to movables, it would be utterly impossible for the owner, in many cases, to know in what manner to dispose of them during his life, or to distribute them at his death; not only from the uncertainty of their situation in the transit to and from different places, but from the impracticability of knowing with minute acccuracy the law of transfers inter vivos, or of testamentary dispositions and successions in the different countries in which they might happen to be. Any change of place at a future time might defeat the best considered will; and any sale or donation might be rendered inoperative, from the ignorance of the parties of the law of the actual situs at the time of their acts. These would be serious evils, pervading the whole community, and equally affecting the subjects and interests of all civilized nations. But in maritime nations, depending upon commerce for their revenue, their power, and their glory, the mischief would be incalculable. A sense of general utility, therefore, must have first suggested the doctrine; and as soon as it was promulgated, it could not fail to recommend itself to all nations by its simplicity, its convenience, and its enlarged policy." Story, Conf. of L., § 379. The place of domicil is usually the place of the transaction, but where there is a difference between the domicil and the place of the transaction, the tendency of recent opinion seems to be that the law of the place of the transaction should be held to apply in preference to that of the domicil. "It does not follow," says Story, in explaining the rules, that movables are governed by the law of the domicil," that a transfer made by the owner according to the law of the place of its actual situs, would not as completely divest his title; nor even that transfer by him in any foreign country, which would be good according to the law of that country, would not be equally effectual, although he might not have his domicil there. For purposes of this sort his personal property may, in many cases, be deemed subject to his disposal wherever he may happen to be at the time of the alienation. Thus, a merchant, domiciled in America, may doubtless transfer his personal property according to the law of his domicil, wherever the property may be. But, if he should direct a sale of it, or make a sale of it in a foreign country, where it is situate at the time, according to the laws thereof, either in person or by an agent, the validity of such a sale would scarcely be doubted. If a merchant is temporarily abroad, he is understood to possess a general authority to transfer such personal property as accompanies his person wherever he may be, so always that he does not violate the law of the country where the act is done. The general convenience and freedom of commerce require this enlargement of the rule; for otherwise the sale of personal property actually situate in a foreign country and made according to the forms prescribed by its laws, might be declared void in the country of the domi cil of the owner. In the ordinary course of trade with foreign countries, no one thinks of transferring personal property according to the forms of his own domicil; but it is transferred according to the forms prescribed by the law of the place where the sale takes place." Story, Confi. of L., § 384. See also Westlake, Private Intern. Law, §§ 266-267 It may, therefore, be deemed a more correct statement of the rule, to refer, as in the Article above presented, to the law which governs the person of the owner wherever he may be, rather than that of the domicil, or that of his nation, from which he may be absent at the time of the transaction in question. Westlake, (Priv. Intern. Law, § 267,) inclines to favor the rule referring to the situs of the property, admitting, however, the inconvenience in the case of property, the exact situation of which is unknown. It should seem that the more serious inconvenience of compelling parties to conform to laws which they have no present means of ascertaining, and which they will not, as in the case of ships and lands, generally suppose to apply, is decisive in favor of the rule which refers to the place of the act. The real grounds of the rule referring to the situs, namely, the protection of subsequent purchasers or creditors there, are provided for by the Articles of the next Chapter on TRANSFER. If the rule of the situs should be recognized, it might perhaps be defined sufficiently to secure its real object by provisions like the following: 1. Movable property of a foreigner imported into any nation, during its presence in that nation, is with reference to the assignability between living persons, or mode of charging such property, subject to the regula tions of the country in which such foreigner has placed it, and which, in these respects, affects the personal property of the members of such nation; and any such assignment inter vivos, or charge, will retain its original validity and effect, although the property be subsequently removed to another country. See Oliver v. Townes, 2 Martin's (Louisiana) Rep., N. S.,) 93; Taylor v. Boardman, 25 Vermont Rep., 581; Westlake, Priv. Intern. L., p. 257, § 272, note (d). See also, generally, Story, Confl. of L., ch. IX. It was held in Martin v. Hill, (12 Barbour's (New York) Rep., 631), that a mortgage upon movables valid where it was made, was valid in another state to which the movables were subsequently carried and by the laws of which such a mortgage would be void as against attaching creditors. The protection of such charges are fully secured by the Articles of this and the next Chapter. 2. If any lien, hypothecation, or other charge has attached to movables by the law of any country where the movables are situated, at the time it attached, so as to affect them in the hands of the owner, the same charge will attach to them in the hands of any transferee, although it has not attached to them according to the previous provisions of this chapter. See Story, Confl. of L., §§ 386-389. Local character of public funds and corporate shares. 572. Public funds or stocks, and shares or other interests in, or obligations of, nations or states, or of bodies politic or corporate, or other artificial bodies. owing their existence to local laws, are governed in re spect to the validity and effect of transactions affecting the same, or property therein, by that law which gives them existence, subject, however, to such further retrictions as are imposed by the law of the place where the same are delivered or transferred. Story, Conf. of L., § 383. From the nature of the stock of a corporation, which is created by and under the authority of a State, it is necessarily, like every other attribute of the corporation, to be governed by the local law of that State, and not by the local law of any foreign State. Black v. Zacharie, 3 Howard's U. S. Supr. Ct. Rep., 483; Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 New York Rep., 9. As to the national character of public funds, see Commissioners of Charitable Donations v. Devereux, 13 Simon's Rep., 29, 30. Local character of shipping. 573. Property in shipping is governed in respect to the title thereto, the modes of transfer, or of charging, or otherwise disposing of the same,' between living persons,' by the law of the nationality of the vessel, as defined by Chapter XX. In Hooper v. Guman, (Law Rep., 2 Chancery App., 282,) it was held that although legal title to a ship must be determined by the law of its nationality, a foreign contract of sale thereof, and the effect of the intervention of the title of a bona fide purchaser, for value, in a foreign country, must be governed by the law of the foreign country. In Thomas v. Kosciusko (11 New York Legal Observer, 38), it is said that the transmission on the death of the owner is governed by the law of his domicil. Story mentions as another exception, beside those mentioned in the last two Articles, the case of property in custody of the law under revenue acts; but it may be doubted whether such custody should affect the question of title. It rather relates only to the lien mantained by the government, and a transfer according to foreign law subject to such lien might be valid. Effect of matrimonial settlement. 574. The rights of property in movables, as affected by marriage, are governed by the express contract of the parties, subject to the provisions of Chapter XLVI., on CONTRACTS.' Until such contract is made," or to the extent that the contract is inoperative,' such rights are regulated by the next article. 1 Bishop, on Marriage and Divorce, 1, § 404; Story, Confl. of L., § 184. The exception must be understood, that the laws of the place where the rights are sought to be enforced, do not prohibit such arrangements. Story, Conf. of Laws, § 188. 3 Story, Conf. of L., § 185; Westlake, Private Intern. Law, § 372. Rights of property of persons married without a settlement. 575. The rights of property in movables, whether owned at the time of marriage or afterwards acquired, as affected by marriage except in respect of succession, are governed by the law of the matrimonial domicil. But upon a change of domicil, the right, as to all subsequent acquisitions, is determined by the law of the new domicil." Matrimonial property after change of domicil. 576. After a change by married persons, from the matrimonial domicil, the mutual rights of the husband and wife, acquired subsequently thereto, in each other's movable property, which arise from the marriage relation, and are dependent upon its continuance, are determined by the law applicable to their transactions, or by the law of their new domicil, according to the provisions of this Code, except as otherwise provided by express contract between the parties as to such rights. This, so far as the law of domicil is concerned, is the American rule. Story, Conf. of L., § 187, (§ 171, b, et seq., Redfield's ed.;) and is supported by Windschied Pankekten, I., § 35, p. 78, note. To the contrary, Westlake, Priv. Intern. Law, § 366, et seq. The supposition of a tacit consent, or submission, of the parties to the law of the matrimonial domicil, is certainly open to the objection that, even assuming the parties to have any intention on the subject, there is nothing to show that it was directed to the law of the matrimonial, rather than to that of the subsequent, domicil. "Matrimonial domicil" defined. 577. The matrimonial domicil is the domicil first established by the husband and wife together; or, if none such be established, it is that of the husband at the time of the marriage. See Story, Confl. of L., § 193. Abandonment. 578. The matrimonial domicil is not changed by an abandonment of one party by the other. Bonati v. Welsh, 24 New York Rep., 157. 66 CHAPTER XLII. TRANSFER. ARTICLE 579. "Transfer," defined. 580. Voluntary transfer. 581. Validity of transfers. 582. Jurisdiction over movables. Transfer" defined. 579. The term "transfer," as used in this Code, means an act of the parties, or of the law by which the title to property is conveyed from one living person to another.' It includes the creation and the extinguishment, by such act of an interest in movables or immovables. 1 Civil Code, reported for New York, § 458. Voluntary transfer. 580. A voluntary transfer is a transfer by act of the parties, without compulsion of law, whether with or without consideration. Validity of transfers. 581. Subject to the next two articles, and to the provisions of Chapter XLVI., on CONTRACTS, a transfer of movables, whether voluntary or involuntary, if valid by the law of the place where it is made, is valid everywhere. Where personal property is seized and sold under an attachment, or other writ, issuing from a court of the State where the property lies, the question of the liability of the property to be sold under such writ, must be determined by the law of that State, though the domicil of all the claimants to the property may be in another State. In a suit in any other State growing out of such seizure and sale, the effect of the proceedings by which it was sold, on the title to the property, must be determined by the law of the State where the proceedings were had. Green v. Van Buskirk, 5 Wallace's U. S. Supreme Ct. Rep., 307. Jurisdiction over movables. 582. A transfer of movables, which is prohibited by |