Scribd
Upload
927 views2 pages

Gray v. Gray

Mrs. Gray, a New Hampshire resident, sued her husband for injuries sustained in a car accident that occurred in Maine. Maine law barred spousal lawsuits. New Hampshire law did not. The court held that Maine law governed because the accident occurred there. While status as husband and wife is determined by domicile, the incidents of that status - such as whether a tort claim can be brought - are governed by the law of the place where the act occurred. Therefore, Mrs. Gray could not sue in New Hampshire.

Uploaded by

Paolo Bañadera
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
927 views2 pages

Gray v. Gray

Mrs. Gray, a New Hampshire resident, sued her husband for injuries sustained in a car accident that occurred in Maine. Maine law barred spousal lawsuits. New Hampshire law did not. The court held that Maine law governed because the accident occurred there. While status as husband and wife is determined by domicile, the incidents of that status - such as whether a tort claim can be brought - are governed by the law of the place where the act occurred. Therefore, Mrs. Gray could not sue in New Hampshire.

Uploaded by

Paolo Bañadera
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Gray v.

Gray (1934)
Facts:
Gray filed an action in New Hampshire
o Action is for damages arising out of personal injuries
o Alleged to have been caused by her husband while driving
from their home in New Hampshire to Maine where the
accident happened.
In Maine: spouses are barred from maintaining an action
against each other.
o No such prohibition exists in New Hampshire.
Issue/s:
WON Mrs. Gray can sue Mr. Gray NO
Held:
Rule: conflict between the lex loci and the lex fori lex loci
governs, as regards the legal effect and the incident of acts
o Therefore: whatever would be a defense to this action if it
had been brought in Maine is a defense here (New
Hampshire), EXCEPT IF: the cause of action had arisen in
this (New Hampshire) state.
Mrs. Grays argument:
o only reason a recovery could not be had in Maine is the
spousal relation between her and Mr. Gray
o Since they are residents of New Hampshire, where no
such prohibition exists, she could sue in New Hampshire.
Is Mrs. Grays argument correct? NO
o Her argument fails to distinguish between status and the
incidents which local law attaches to the status.
Status of parties: husband and wife, which they
brought into Maine.
Incidents of the status: those prescribed by law of
the place where transactions take place (e.g.
applied in torts)
o It should be observed that much of the plaintiffs
argument is based upon the assertion that inability to
recover in Maine is merely because suits between
husband and wife are forbidden (hence the resort to a
jurisdiction where such suits are allowed)
BUT: examination of Maine law shows that there is
not only a prohibition of suit, but that acts
complained of do not give rise to any cause of
action.
Rules and conduct have no force to regulate acts done outside
the jurisdiction which made the rules, save as their operation is
enforced by control over parties found within the jurisdiction.
o In the great majority of cases, complaints of conduct are
adjusted in the jurisdiction where the conduct took place.
It is desirable that the remedy be the same, wherever the
action is brought.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy