Mixed Marriages in the United Kingdom between British Subjects and French Citizens-Agreement between the two Governments. 826 Draft of Consular Certificate, to be issued by French Consuls in cases of Marriage in the United Kingdom between British Subjects and III. (PAGES 459, 463.) APPENDIX I. PAGES 267 AND 594. Below is printed at length the leading American decision upon the application of Personal and Real Statutes. SAUL v. HIS CREDITORS (a). Appeal from the Court of the First District. Marginal Note of Reporter. Subsequent statutes do not repeal previous ones by containing different provisions. They must be contrary. The jurisprudence of Spain makes a part of the Law of Louisiana. The rules in relation to real and personal statutes apply also to unwritten laws or customs. Where the personal statute of the domicil is in opposition to a real statute of situation, the real statute will prevail. Contracts are governed by the laws of the country where they are made, but they cannot be enforced to the injury of a State whose aid is required to carry them into effect. Nor where they are in opposition to the positive laws of that State. In the conflict of laws, where it is doubtful which should prevail, the court that decides should prefer the law of its own country to that of the stranger. Personal statutes of the country where a contract is sought to be enforced may sometimes control the personal statutes of the country where the contract was made. The law relating to acquests and gains made during marriage is a real, not a personal statute, and governs marriages made in other countries, where the parties reside in this, as to all property acquired after their removal, But they yield to an express agreement made on entering into marriage in another country. The contract of pledge of incorporeal things will not give a preference unless evidenced by an authentic act, or one duly recorded (a) 5 Martin, (Louisiana) Rep. New Series, p. 569. at a time not suspicious. And this contract sous seing prive, though made long before insolvency, cannot be recorded at a time when the debtor would be incapable of giving a preference by any act of his. Appeal from the Court of the First District. Porter, J., delivered the judgment of the Court. The tableau of distribution filed by the syndics of the insolvent was opposed in the court of the first instance; and the opposition being sustained, an appeal has been taken to this court by the syndics, by the Bank of the United States, the Bank of Orleans, and the Bank of Louisiana. The claims admitted by the Judge a quo, and which are now contested here, are: 1. That of the children of the insolvent, who claim as privileged creditors, for the amount inherited by them from their deceased mother. 2. That of John Jacob Astor, of New York, who avers that he is a creditor of the insolvent for the sum of $64,000, and that he has a privilege on 751 shares of stock of the Bank of Orleans, which were pledged to him, and now make a part of the estate surrendered. 3. That of Alexander Brown and Sons, of Baltimore, who also assert a privilege on bank-stock, which they state was pledged to them by the insolvent for the security of a loan of $9,000 and upwards. The different questions of law arising on these claims have been argued with an ability worthy of their importance. Some of these questions are now presented for the first time for decision; and those which have been already before the Court and acted on, on other occasions, have been examined with so much care by the counsel, and have received such additional light from the laborious investigation bestowed on them, that they come upon our consideration with as much freshness as if this was the only time our attention had been drawn to them. We shall take them up in the order in which they have been already stated; and first as to the claim of the insolvent's children. From the facts admitted by the parties, which admission makes the statement on this appeal, it appears that Saul and his wife intermarried in the State of Virginia, on the 6th of February, 1794, their domicil being then in that State; that they remained there until the year 1804, when they removed to the now State of Louisiana; that they fixed their residence here, and continued this residence up to the year 1819, when the wife died; that after their removal from Virginia, and while living and having their domicil in this State, a large quantity of property was acquired, which at the death of the wife remained in the possession of her husband, the insolvent. The children claim the one half of the property, as acquests and |