UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE

UNION TRUST CO. V. GROSMAN, 245 U. S. 412 (1917)

245 U. S. 412

U.S. Supreme Court

Union Trust Co. v. Grosman, 245 U.S. 412 (1917)

Union Trust Co. v. Grosman

No. 106

Argued December 20, 21, 1917

Decided January 7, 1918

245 U.S. 412

Syllabus

While a husband and wife, domiciled in Texas, were temporarily in Illinois, the former executed his note and the latter her continuing guaranty of payment. Assuming that the guaranty would have been enforced in Illinois, held that comity did not call for it enforcement by the court of Texas against the wife's separate property there if contrary to the public policy of Texas, for it is one thing for a court to decline to be an instrument for depriving citizens belonging to the jurisdiction of their property in way not intended by the law that govern them, another to deny its clubjuris

Page 245 U. S. 413

offices to enforce obligations good by the lex domicilii and the lex loci contractus against those whom the local laws have no duty to protect.

By the law of Texas -- the common law modified by statute -- a married woman's guaranty of her husband's note is not enforceable against her separate property. In this case, note and guaranty were part of one transaction, but the guaranty was a separate instrument executed by the wife alone.

If a contract, made and valid in one state, is unenforceable in the courts of another on ground of local public policy, it is unenforceable also, for the same reason, in the district court sitting in the latter state and having jurisdiction through diversity of citizenship.

228 F.6d 0 affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion. clubjuris

Page 245 U. S. 415


ClubJuris.Com