CQRRIE'S CASE. 491

of nations as being every where alike obligatory,) is in each 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. (d) 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 considered. Yet
after that period of mere infantine imbecility, there is a space of
non-age established by law, which is different in different 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-
moveable 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; (e) yet, they may not be allowed to
make any such disposition 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 coun-
try, must, as to all his personal capacities, during his residence
there, be governed by the law of the place; as, in general the per-
sonal capacity is regulated by the law of the country, (f) And
consequently, in the case under consideration, no great difficulty
can arise in fixing the exact termination of the infancy of these
children, or the duration of the guardianship, 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 al!

(d) Feaubert v. Trust, Prec. Cha. 207; Doe v. Vardill, H Com. Law Rep.
266.—(e) 1798, ch. 101, sub ch. 1, s. 3.—(f) Ex parte Gillam, 2 Ves. jun., 587.
la the matter of Houston, I Russ. 312; Male v. Roberts, 3 Esp. N. P. Rep. 163;
Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, 4 Ecclesi. Rep. 485; Herbert v. Herbert, 4 Eclesi. Rep.
535; Ruding v. Smith, 4 Ecclesi. Rep. 551; Harford v. Morris, 4 Ecclesi. Rep.
575; Middleton v. Janverin, 4 Ecclesi. Rep. 582; Doe e. Vardell, 11 Com. Law
Rep.266.