Loftus v. F. & M. N. Bank

Citations

• 133 Pa. 97
• 19 A. 347
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 879

Syllabus

<p>1. The Married Person’s Property Act of June 3, 1887, P. L. 332, relating io the rights and powers of married women in the control and disposition of their separate properly, cannot be assumed as intended to apply to married women domiciled in other states. It is therefore without effect as to the validity of a power of attorney executed by a wife domiciled with her husband in England.</p> <p>2. The settled general rule is, that the validity of a transfer of personal property is to be determined by the law of the owner’s domicile, especially when its determination involves a question of legal disability, such as infancy, coverture, etc.; but this rule is subject to the power of the state to declare otherwise, as to property having an actual or legal situs within its bordors.</p> <p>3. The act of March 18, 1875, P. L. 24, making it lawful for any married woman owning any of the loans of the commonwealth or of the city of Philadelphia, etc., to sell and transfer them with like effect as if unmarried, applies lo all owners of such loans, including foreign or nonresident married women, and confers, as an incident of the authority to transfer, the power to appoint an attorney for that purpose.</p> <p>4. Said act of 1875 is not in conflict with § 7, article III. of the constitution. It is not a regulation of the municipal affairs of the city of Philadelphia, within the meaning of that section, but it is a regulation of the mode of transfer of certain kinds of property for the public business convenience, and the legislature may include in such a regulation such city loans as tilts public convenience requires.</p> <p>5. Under said act, an instrument appointing an attorney to transfer a loan of the city of Philadelphia, which the owner of such loan, a married woman whose husband is a British subject domiciled in England and was married to her in Italy, has executed and acknowledged in New York in the same manner as if she were unmarried, is valid and effectual, although