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

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 245 U.S. 398, click here.

Union Trust Co. v. Grosman

No. 106

Argued December 20, 21, 1917
Decided January 7, 1918
245 U.S. 412

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

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 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. 610 affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion.