Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/424

 campbell v. cbampton. 417 �Campbell v. Ceampton. {Circuit Court, N. D. New York. May 17, 1880.) �CoNTBACT — Capacitt to Contract — Law to Govbrk. — Where a conr tract is made in one state, to be perf ormed in another, the capacitj of the parties to make the contract is, as a general rule, to be determined by the law of the plaee where it is entered into. �Samb— Agreement to Marrt — Nephbw and Adnt. — Where a contract for marriage between nephew and aunt was entered into in Alabama, where such marriages were declared incestuous, upon the trial of an action for a breach of such contract in New York the court charged that, if the parties could lawfuUy marry in New York, and by the terms of their promises they were to be fulflUed by a marriage in New York, the agreement was valid, and damages for the breach of such contract recoverable. Hdd, erroneous. �Marriage — ^Validity of — Generally, a marriage valid at the place of solemnization is valid every where. �Bame — Place dp Performance. — It is not the mere place of solemniza- tion of a marriage ceremony, but the place where the parties are to be domiciled, that is to be deemed the place of performance of the mar- riage contract. �Bame — Nephkw and Aunt — Contract to Marry. — While, under the laws of the state of New York, a marriage between nephew and aunt may not be voidable for consanguinity, it by no means foUows that an agreement to marry between parties so related will be tolerated, or dam- ages be permitted to be recovered for breach thereof. �Ransom e Joyce, for complainant. �Wm. Douglas and A. K. Potter, for defendant. �Wallace, D. J. The plaintiff having recovered a verdict for $10,000 for breach of contract of marriage, the defendant now moves for a new trial, alleging error in the rulings upou the trial. �The plaintiff is a half-sister of the defendant's mother. She was temporarily residing at Mobile, Alabama, which was the domicile of the defendant, when the marriage engagement took place. Subsequently the plaintiff returned to the state of New York. The evidence authorized the jury to fincj that at the time of the engagement to marry the parties did not contemplate an early marriage ; that it was not until after the plaintiff had removed to the state of New York that any defi- nite plan as to the time or place of the marriage was enter- �v.2,no.4— 27 ����