ELSERCE A.

GRAY
vs.
FRANK M. GRAY
Prepared by Camille Acabado
FACTS:
Plaintiff and defendant, a married couple residents
of New Hampshire, had an automobile accident alleged
to have been caused by the husband while driving in
New Hampshire to Maine where the accident
happened.

New Hampshire allows suits between husband and

wife, while Maine retains the common law doctrine of
interspousal immunity.
In an action for damages brought in New
Hampshire,

PLAINTIFF (WIFE) ARGUED:

Since they are residents of New Hampshire,

where no such prohibition exists, she could sue
in New Hampshire, given that the only reason a
recovery could not be had in Maine is their
spousal relation.
DEFENDANT (HUSBAND) MOVED TO
DISMISS BUT WAS DENIED
ON APPEAL:

Supreme Court of New Hampshire,

held, REVERSED.
 Is the Plaintiff’s
contention correct?

NO.
To ascertain the rights resulting from acts done or
omitted, attention must be paid to the circumstances
under which the events took place; and one of the
governing circumstances is the law of the place which
characterizes the act. (LEX LOCI DELICTI COMMISSI)

Not to exceed the binding force of the foreign law beyond

the territorial limits of sovereignty to which it belongs, but
to establish whether the right claimed exists or not.
Her argument failed to distinguish between status
and incident which local law attaches to the status.

• STATUS OF PARTIES AS HUSBAND AND

WIFE
(WHICH THEY BROUGHT TO MAINE)

• INCIDENT OF THE STATUS

(THOSE PRESCRIBED BY LAW OF THE PLACE WHERE
TRANSACTIONS TAKE PLACE)
It should be observed that much of the plaintiff’s
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 suits,
But that acts complained of do not give
rise to any cause of action. Therefore there
has been no breach of legal duty.

If there is no ground of action in the sovereignty

where the tort is alleged to have occurred, there is
none anywhere.
THE VESTED RIGHTS THEORY

An act done in a foreign jurisdiction gives rise to the

existence of a right if the laws of that state provides so.
This right vests in the plaintiff and he carries it with him
to be enforced in any forum he chooses to bring suit.

The forum refers to the law of the place of occurrence

of the “last act” necessary to complete the cause of
action.
Hence, if the laws of the state where the last
act occurred create no legal right, there is
nothing for the forum to recognize and
enforce, even if its own law creates such a
right.
END. THANK YOU!