【Case Study】

Anton v.Bartolo,(1891) Clunet 1171.

A husband and wife,who were domiciled in Malta at the time of their marriage,acquired a French domicile.The husband bought land in France.After his death his widow brought an action in France claiming a usufruct in one quarter of the land.There was uniformity in the rules for the choice of law of both countries: succession to land was governed by the law of the situs,but matrimonial rights were dependent on the law of the domicile at the time of the marriage.(https://www.daowen.com)

The first essential,therefore,was to decide whether the facts raised a question of succession to land or of matrimonial rights.At this point,however,a conflict of classifications emerged.In the French view the fact raised a question of succession; in the Maltese view a question of matrimonial rights.When a conflict of this nature arises,it is apparent that,if a court applies its own rules of classification,the ultimate decision on the merits will vary with the country in which the action is brought.In this case,the widow would have failed in France but have succeeded in Malta.