ABSTRACT
In giving judgment, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire considered the purpose of its own law. Was the law principally concerned with the regulation of conveyances within New Hampshire or was it designed to to protect married women domiciled in New Hampshire against pressure from their husbands? The court decided that the purpose of the legislation was to protect married women domiciled in New Hampshire from pressure from their husbands and that there was no reason why the legislation should be extended to protect married women elsewhere. Having come to this conclusion, the court was able to uphold the mortgage. Of course, if the New Hampshire court had felt that its protectionary policy was so fundamental a matter that it should be applied whatever the domicile of the woman and whatever the attitude of her personal law, the decision would have been the other way.
