## Facts

- Shelton C. Burr sought to foreclose a trust deed on Chicago real estate securing a promissory note executed by Ednah J. Tobey (later Beckler), who was then married to Charles H. Tobey.
- While Ednah was temporarily in Florida, Charles asked her by letter to sign (1) a promissory note payable to her own order and (2) a trust deed on the Illinois property to secure the note, asserting funds were needed to address an overdraft.
- Ednah signed the note and trust deed in Florida; the encumbered real estate was located in Illinois.
- After marital difficulties and divorce proceedings, Ednah requested that Charles, acting as trustee, release the trust deed; instead, he assigned the note and trust deed to Burr, his business associate.
- Ednah defended and filed a cross-bill alleging, among other defenses, that Florida law rendered her (as a married woman) incapable of executing the note and trust deed, making them void; she also alleged Burr was not a bona fide assignee and had notice of the circumstances.
- The circuit court held the instruments void and enjoined enforcement; the appellate court reversed and directed foreclosure; the Illinois Supreme Court reviewed on a certificate of importance.

## Issues

1. Whether Ednah’s capacity to execute the promissory note was governed by Florida law (place of execution) or Illinois law (domicile and situs of the land).
2. If Florida law governed and denied her contractual capacity, whether the resulting invalidity of the note rendered the Illinois trust deed securing it unenforceable against the property.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed the circuit court’s decree for Ednah.
- The court held Florida law governed Ednah’s capacity to contract because the promissory note was executed in Florida.
- Under Florida coverture law in effect at the time, Ednah lacked capacity to execute the note; the note was void.
- Because the trust deed was accessory security for the note, the trust deed was also void and could not be foreclosed.

## Legal Principles

- A party’s capacity to enter a contract is generally determined by the law of the place where the contract is made (lex loci contractus).
- When an instrument affecting land is given solely as security for an underlying obligation, enforceability of the security depends on the validity of the underlying obligation.
- A married woman’s Illinois domicile and Illinois capacity rules do not validate a promissory note executed in another state when the law of that state denies her capacity; the note is void where made and cannot support enforcement of related security.

## Conclusion

The court treated the controversy as one of contractual capacity, applied Florida law to a note executed in Florida, found the note void due to the maker’s incapacity under Florida coverture law, and held the Illinois trust deed securing that note unenforceable, reversing the appellate court and reinstating the trial court’s injunction against foreclosure.


Burr v. Beckler, 264 Ill. 230, 106 N.E. 206 (Ill. 1914)