125 Mass. 374 (1878)
Mrs. Pratt, a married woman whose home was in Massachusetts, executed a guaranty bearing date of Portland, Maine, as collateral security for the liability of her husband for goods sold by the plaintiffs to him.1 She sent the guaranty through him by mail to the plaintiffs at Portland.2 The plaintiffs sold goods ordered by the husband from their location in Portland, Maine, with deliveries made in that state or to a carrier for him.3
The contract between the defendant and the plaintiffs became complete when the guaranty had been received and acted on by the plaintiffs at Portland.4 The law of Maine authorized a married woman to bind herself by any contract as if she were unmarried.5 The law of Massachusetts, as then existing, did not allow her to enter into a contract as surety or for the accommodation of her husband or any third person.6 Since the making of the contract sued on, and before the bringing of this action, the law of this Commonwealth has been changed, so as to enable married women to make such contracts.7
The plaintiffs sued the defendant in Massachusetts courts to recover on the guaranty.8 The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts decided the case on the record presented.9
Whether a contract made in another state by a married woman domiciled in Massachusetts, which she was not at the time capable of making under Massachusetts law but was allowed to make under the law of the place of contracting, and which she could lawfully make under Massachusetts law by the time suit was brought, will sustain an action against her in Massachusetts courts?10
The validity of a contract is to be determined by the law of the state in which it is made; if it is valid there, it is deemed valid everywhere, and will sustain an action in the courts of a state whose laws do not permit such a contract.11 Even a contract expressly prohibited by the statutes of the state in which the suit is brought, if not in itself immoral, is not necessarily nor usually deemed so invalid that the comity of the state, as administered by its courts, will refuse to entertain an action on such a contract made by one of its own citizens abroad in a state the laws of which permit it.12 If the contract is completed in another state, it makes no difference in principle whether the citizen of this state goes in person, or sends an agent, or writes a letter, across the boundary line between the two states.13
Yes. The guaranty executed by Mrs. Pratt, a married woman domiciled in Massachusetts, was sent by mail to the plaintiffs in Portland, Maine, where it was received and acted on, completing the contract in Maine. Maine law authorized married women to bind themselves by any contract as if unmarried. Although Massachusetts law at the time prohibited such suretyship contracts by married women, the contract is treated as made and to be performed in the State of Maine.14 The rule of lex loci contractus therefore governs the capacity question, and the contract sustains an action in Massachusetts courts.15
The subsequent change in Massachusetts law to enable married women to make such contracts confirms that no public policy reason exists to bar enforcement.16
The contract made in Maine by the married woman domiciled in Massachusetts will sustain an action against her in Massachusetts courts.17