470 CORBIE'S CASE.—2 BLAND.

state of positive institution; and varies in form and degree with
the various nations by whose laws it is regulated; or within which
country, she, with her husband, may, for the time being, have
their domicil. Feaubert v. Trust, Prec. Cha. 207; Doe v. Vardill,
11 Com. Law Rep. 26G. The incapacity of an infant, is, in some
respects, both natural and artificial. For some time after birth,
the incapacity of an infant, both bodily and mental, being natural
and alike in all countries, must accordingly be every where so con-
sidered. Yet after that period of mere infantine imbecility, there
is a space of non-age established by law, which is different in dif-
ferent countries.

But as the exact point of full age has been every where regu-
lated, chiefly with a view to the disposition of property, what is to
be deemed full age, must therefore be determined, in each State,
according to that right of disposition. Claims to land and im-
movable property are always regulated by the law of the place
where it is situated; and hence, although these female infants
would here, on their attaining the age of eighteen, have a right
to dispose by will, of their real estate here; 1798, ch. 101. sub-ch.
1, s. 3; yet, they may not be allowed to make any such disposi-
tion of their land in Trinidad, until they attain the age of twenty-
one years. And as the disposition of personal property is, with
some qualifications, allowed by all nations to be governed by the
law of the owner's domicil, it follows, that full age, as established
by that law, must give a capacity to dispose of such property,
wherever it may be found. Except however, that every person,
whether temporarily or permanently living in a country, must, as
to all his personal capacities, daring his residence there be gov-
erned by the law of the place; as, in general the personal capacity
is regulated by the law of the country. Ex parte Gillam, 2 Vex.
Jun. 587; In the matter of Houston, 1 Russ. 312; Male v. Roberts.

3 Esp. N. P. Rep. 163; Dalrymple v. Dalrymple. 4 Ecelesi. Rep.
485; Herbert v. Herbert, 4 Ecclesi. Rep. 535; Ruding v. Smith,

4 Ecclesi. Rep. 551; Harford v. Morris. 4 Ecclesi. Rep. 575; Mid-
dleton v. Janverin, 4 Ecelesi. Rep. 582; Doe v. Vardell, 11 Com.
Law Rep. 206. And consequently, in the case under considera-
tion, no great difficulty can ai'ise in fixing the exact termina
tion of the infancy of these children, or the duration of the guar-
dianship, that may be here assumed over them.

Among the- important duties which a State owes to itself, is
wrapped up. that obligation by which it is bound to take care of
all *its own citizens. Upon which obligation each member
492 of the community, as a component part of the whole, has a
clear and undeniable claim upon the State for its assistance, in all
cases, where, either because of the overruling circumstances in
which he may be placed, or because of his own peculiar imbe-
cility, he is incapable of sustaining himself. Hence it is, that,