The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-01-02

the sentence that divorce granted and
parties domiciled here. Even these facts
alluded having bearing upon the question of the
of the policy. The had finished
upon that question upon question of
ership And this be the of misunderstanding
this is confused with ownership If
had possession of certain personal property under contract
AS in his right and if So what
that was or had died might be question of
construction whether the property should then to AS
representatives else These questions would be
of the place of But suppose the
construed having passed the property abso
luey and his representatives, the further question who
the representatives would be of construction but
distribution be solved by the law of the place. of the
contract AS donc. Or, suppose had previously
the property his would not take at all
of of the contract by
the law of domc or anv other law but because the ownership
of the property had changeda question which might
say be determined by other law the law of the place
of assignment, if that different place So if had
become bankrupt and the property had become by
operation of law to his assignee in bankruptcy So If had
and the property had passed law her husband
So divorce had been obtained against her.
and the property had erupon passed her husband by
alton of law To allow assignee of contract to recover
the of the original contract but to enforce the
of the contract of assignment
argued that if the fact that the policy
New York is sufficient require the New
York govern in determining the question of assignment
of distinguished from the question of
srucon, yet is expressly provided in the policy that the
New York law should govern and competent for the
parties agree Let that such agreement
made would have been valid The provision referred to
policy proper copy of which before the
application, which, although in terms made part
of the policy before the court and has not to thus day
by the This provision stated in the brief
follows "Ths application is made to the Mutual Life In
srance Co. York. subject the Charter of the Com
pany and of New York. An application
which the parties themselves did make part of the
and which the had had opportunity OF seelng
had been part of the case,
the would still have been in the dark the provisions
of he Charter of the Company and the laws of the State of
New York." proof of which made In the present
counses brief to be reference made to an old New
differing slightly from former
subject under consideration, but such reference
made the first hearing and if it had been made, would
have been sufficient proof of what the New York law at
and might the charter have contained other
for the parties have agreed that the property
in the policy should pass in different from that
prescribed by Hawaiian law they also have agreed
similarly as to New York law? But aside from all this
do how agreement that the application made
subject the charter of the and the laws of the State
of New York. be construed that the
ship of the policy itself after issued the right to the
should be determined by that charter those
Not merely because the application the policy,
though part it, for if the policy itself had been issued
expressly subject the charter and laws (and probably
issued subject thereto whether expressly stated no
this could that the New York statutory law should
question that might subsequently relation
the pocyits ownership the in which the
dure by which should be enforced the who would be
representatives survived his wife, &c.
Indeed New York be assumed include private inter
national law by which the effect of divorce upon the
ship personal property determined by the law of the place
of divorce least if that also the place of domcthe
New statute the subject far relates to
property being presumed to apply only to divorces granted in
that In considering this question, it should be borne
mind that the specific provision in the policy relating to as
sienment is involved.
The company, having brought the widow into court by
ntepeader the position of being subjected
suitsone by the administrator here the other by the
widow in California 1t must rely upon the assumption
that the will take the view of the law There
be doubt that the law should govern whether the
action is brought in Hawaii California New York. In
opinion the law the place domc and divorce.
We only that the California court will take the
view.
point relied on that Hawaiian law, that
law did not pass the policy question the husband The
statute Civ Code Sec 1850 provided that W hen divorce
decreed for the adultery of the wife, the husband
shall hold her personal estate forever The argument
that, the has held that the former Civ
Code Sec 1866 upon the rights of husband and wife, which
made the husband the virtual owner of the movable prop
ery of his wife substantially enactment of the common