Gray v. Gray

Gray v. Gray (1934) Facts: 

Gray filed an action in New Hampshire o Action is for damages arising out of personal injuries o Alleged to have been caused by her husband while driving from their home in New Hampshire to Maine where the



accident happened. In Maine: spouses are barred from maintaining an action against each other. o No such prohibition exists in New Hampshire.

Issue/s: 

WON Mrs. Gray can sue Mr. Gray – NO

Held: 

Rule: conflict between the lex loci and the lex fori – lex loci governs, as regards the legal effect and the incident of acts o Therefore: whatever would be a defense to this action if it had been brought in Maine is a defense here (New Hampshire), EXCEPT IF: the cause of action had arisen in



this (New Hampshire) state. Mrs. Gray’s argument: o only reason a recovery could not be had in Maine is the o



spousal relation between her and Mr. Gray Since they are residents of New Hampshire, where no

such prohibition exists, she could sue in New Hampshire. Is Mrs. Gray’s argument correct? NO o Her argument fails to distinguish between status and the incidents which local law attaches to the status.  Status of parties: husband and wife, which they 

brought into Maine. Incidents of the status: those prescribed by law of the place where transactions take place (e.g.

o

applied in torts) It should be observed that much of the plaintiff’s argument is based upon the assertion that inability to recover in Maine is merely because suits between

husband and wife are forbidden (hence the resort to a jurisdiction where such suits are allowed)  BUT: examination of Maine law shows that there is not only a prohibition of suit, but that acts complained of do not give rise to any cause of 

action. Rules and conduct have no force to regulate acts done outside the jurisdiction which made the rules, save as their operation is enforced by control over parties found within the jurisdiction. o In the great majority of cases, complaints of conduct are adjusted in the jurisdiction where the conduct took place. It is desirable that the remedy be the same, wherever the action is brought.