Jan. 31

Haumschild v Continental Cas Co. (Wisc. 1959)

• Haumschild: “While the appellant's counsel did not request that we overrule Buckeye v. Buckeye, supra, and the subsequent Wisconsin case dealing with this particular conflict of laws problem, he did specifically seek to have this court apply California's conflict of laws principle, that the law of the domicile is determinative of interspousal capacity to sue, to this particular case. However, to do so would violate the well recognized principle of conflict of laws that, where the substantive law of another state is applied, there necessarily must be excluded such foreign state's law of conflict of laws.”

• Swank v Hufnagle • Ohio woman guaranteed husband’s debt with promissory note, executed in Ohio, and backed up by security interest on Indiana land • Ohio allowed woman to be surety for their husbands • Indiana did not • Suit in Indiana to enforce security interest

• Burr v Beckler • In Florida, Illinois wife guaranteed husband’s debt, backed up by security interest in Illinois property • Florida had prohibition on wives acting as surety • Illinois didn’t • Suit in Illinois to enforce security interest

• Thomson v Kyle • Alabama woman executed promissory note in Ala backed up by mortgage on land in Florida • Once again wives can’t be surety under Ala law • They can under Florida law • Suit in Florida to enforce security interest

• Caldwell v Gore • D erected dam on La property • Obstructed flow of water upstream to P’s property in Ark • La had servitude of lower land to higher to receive water flow freely • Ark law allowed obstruction if reasonable etc.