N. S. 767, 100 L. T. N. S. 916, 25 Times L. R. 625, the court, upon the ground that the capacity of a married woman to make a contract with regard to an immovable is governed by the lex situs, refused to grant either specific performance, or damages for breach, of a contract executed in England by a married woman, whose domicil was English, whereby, to secure a debt of her husband, she agreed to mortgage to a bank carrying on business in England and in the Transvaal a certain immovable in the Transvaal, it appearing that, by the law prevailng in the Transvaal, a married woman was incapable of becoming surety for her husband unless she expressly renounced the benefit of the provisions of the Roman-Dutch law on the subject after having been informed of her rights, a condition that had not been complied with in this case. The opinions in this case do not seem to recognize the possible distinction between the governing law as to the capacity to make an executory contract to convey or mortgage the property, and the governing law as to the capacity to convey or mortgage, although that distinction was urged in the briefs of counsel, which, among other cases, cite Polson v. Stuart (1897) 167 Mass. 211, 36 L.R.A. 771, 57 Am. St. Rep. 452, 45 N. E. 737. The opinion of Buckley, L. J., distinguishing Ex parte Pollard (1840) Mont. & C. Bankr. (Eng.) 239, ob

served that in that case the mortgagor was capable, and had purported to mortgage the land; and while, according to the lex situs, his mortgage was ineffectual in rem, yet, even according to the lex situs, his contract to mortgage could have been enforced in personam, but a judgment for specific performance in the case at bar would mean that the court should order the defendant, after having her rights explained to her, to renounce the provisions of the Roman-Dutch law, whereas the law to be applied is that she, after explanation of her rights, may refuse to renounce them.

In Baum v. Birchall (1892) 150 Pa. 164, 30 Am. St. Rep. 797, 24 Atl. 620, reversing (1891) 11 Pa. Co. Ct. 222, it was held that the law of Delaware governed with respect to the capacity of a married woman domiciled in Pennsylvania to execute a bond for the purchase price of land in Delaware. There were three alternative grounds of decision. The first was that, the bond being payable by its own terms in Delaware, the law of that state governed without reference to where the contract was made; but it was further held that the contract was really made in Delaware, although signed in Pennsylvania, since it was delivered to the obligee in Delaware. The third ground was that, as it was a contract relating to real property, it was governed by the lex rei sitæ.

G. H. P.

Disloyalty

Principal as necessary party on appeal
from dismissal of suit by surety to
cancel bond, where principal joins
obligee in contesting right to cancela-
tion. 18-269.

Record.

Conclusiveness of record as to whether
exception was allowed to plaintiff or
defendant. 18-554.

Errors waived in appellate court.
Exception not briefed is waived. 18-1426.

Necessity for exceptions.

To misconduct of counsel. 18-1272.
To exclusion of evidence,
To instructions.

18-1110.

18-914.

Raising question by motion for new
trial.

18-1272.