Editing Contracts/Governing law

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 1: Line 1:
{{:Contracts/TOC}}{{Breadcrumb|parent_page=Contracts|alias={{SUBPAGENAME}}}}
{{:Contracts/TOC}}


==General Rules==
==General Rules==
''See generally '''[[Conflicts of Laws]]'''.''
''See generally '''[[Conflict of Laws]]'''.''


A contract is governed as to its intrinsic validity and effect by the law with reference to which the parties intended, or fairly may be presumed to have intended, to contract,<ref name ="intent">"The general principle is that a contract is to be governed by the law with a view to which it was made, and this is a question of intention, to be deduced, when not expressly declared, from the place, terms, character, and purposes of the transaction." [[Croissant v. Empire State Realty Co.]], 29 App. (D.C.) 538.</ref> the real place of the contract being a matter of mutual intention, except in exceptional circumstances evincing a purpose in making the contract to commit a fraud on the law.<ref>[[International Harvester Co. v. McAdam]], 142 Wis. 114, 118, 124 NW 1042, 26 LRANS 774, 20 AnnCas 614.<br />
A contract is governed as to its intrinsic validity and effect by the law with reference to which the parties intended, or fairly may be presumed to have intended, to contract,<ref name ="intent">"The general principle is that a contract is to be governed by the law with a view to which it was made, and this is a question of intention, to be deduced, when not expressly declared, from the place, terms, character, and purposes of the transaction." [[Croissant v. Empire State Realty Co.]], 29 App. (D.C.) 538.</ref> the real place of the contract being a matter of mutual intention, except in exceptional circumstances evincing a purpose in making the contract to commit a fraud on the law.<ref>[[International Harvester Co. v. McAdam]], 142 Wis. 114, 118, 124 NW 1042, 26 LRANS 774, 20 AnnCas 614.<br />
{{Quote|As to mere personal contracts the law thereof as to their validity and interpretation is that of the place where they were made; the lex loci contractus, unless the parties thereto I n te n d e d that they should be governed by the law of the place of performance; the lex oel solution is, or of some other place. That is, the place of the contract is, generally speaking, a matter of mutual intention, but the intended place. as determined by legal presumption in some cases and evidentiary circumstances in others, settles all questions as to the legal test of validity and Interpretation. Such presumption, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is that the place of making and performance, In a physical sense, is the place in a legal sense, but the place of performance when differerent from that of the actual making, is the place In such l egal sense, subject to the presumption being rebutted by clear evidence of intention, this being again subject to some exceptions In case of intention to commit a fraud on the law.}} [[International Harvester Co. v. McAdam]], supra.<br />
{{Quote|As to mere personal c o n t racts t h e law thereo f as to t h e i r val idity and I n terpre tat i o n . Is that of the place where t h e y were made ; the lex Joel c o n trac t u s , u nle ss t h e parties thereto I n te n d e d that they sho u ld be go v erned by t h e law of t h e p l ace of performance ; th e lex Joel solu t i o n i s , o r o f some o t h e r p l ace. T h a t I s . the place o f the contract Is, genera l l y s pe a k i ng, a matter o f mu tual Intent i o n , bu t the I n te n ded place. as det e r m i n e d by l egal presu m p t ion I n s o m e cases a n d e v i d e n t iary c i rcum s tances In o the rs, s e t tles all q uest i o n s as to t h e l ega l t �> s t of val i d i ty and In terpretat i o n. Surh presu mpt i o n , I n the a bsence of evidence to t h e co n trary, Is t ha t the place of m a k i n g and pe r f o rmance, In a phys Ical se nse, Is t h e p lace In a legal s e n s e, b u t the place of pPrformancO> when d ltre re n t from t h a t of the a ctual mak i n g, Is the place In such l egal sense, subject to the presum ption bei n g rebu tted by clear e v i dence of I n t e n ti o n , th is bei n g a g a i n s u bject to some exce p t i o n s In cas e o f l n t e n t l o n to com m i t a frau d on t h e law.}} [[International Harvester Co. v. McAdam]], supra.<br />
'''[a] The term "proper law of a contract"''' means the law or laws by which the parties to a contract intended, or may fairly be presumed to have intended , the contract to be governed, or in other words the law or laws to which the parties intended, or may fairly be presumed to have intended, to submit themselves, or more accurately, although in more cumbersome language, the law of the country or the laws of the countries by the law or the laws whereof the parties to a contract intended or may fairly be presumed to have intended the contract to be governed. [[Hamlyn v. Tallsker Distillery]], [1894] A.C. 202; [[Lloyd v. Gulbert]], L.R. 1 Q.B. 115, 6 B. & S. 100, 118 ECL 100, 122 Reprint 1134, 5 ERC 870; [[In re Missouri SS. Co.]], 42 Ch. D. 321.</ref> This law governs not only as to the execution, authentication, and construction of the contract, but also as to the legal obligations arising from it, and as to what is to be deemed a performance, satisfaction, or discharge.<ref>U.S.-O w e n v. G i l e s . 1 5 7 Fed.
'''[a] The term "proper law of a contract"''' means the law or laws by which the parties to a contract intended, or may fairly be presumed to have intended , the contract to be governed, or in other words the law or laws to which the parties intended, or may fairly be presumed to have intended, to submit themselves, or more accurately, although in more cumbersome language, the law of the country or the laws of the countries by the law or the laws whereof the parties to a contract intended or may fairly be presumed to have intended the contract to be governed. [[Hamlyn v. Tallsker Distillery]], [1894] A.C. 202; [[Lloyd v. Gulbert]], L.R. 1 Q.B. 115, 6 B. & S. 100, 118 ECL 100, 122 Reprint 1134, 5 ERC 870; [[In re Missouri SS. Co.]], 42 Ch. D. 321.</ref> This law governs not only as to the execution, authentication, and construction of the contract, but also as to the legal obligations arising from it, and as to what is to be deemed a performance, satisfaction, or discharge.<ref>U.S.-O w e n v. G i l e s . 1 5 7 Fed.
8 2 5 , 86 CCA 1 8 9<br />
8 2 5 , 86 CCA 1 8 9<br />
Line 187: Line 187:
#Of contracts regarding slaves good where made but Illegal where sought to be enforced. White v. Hart, 3 Wall. (U. 8. ) 646, 20 L. ed. 685 : Green wood v. Curtis, 8 Masa. 3 68, 4 AmD 145.
#Of contracts regarding slaves good where made but Illegal where sought to be enforced. White v. Hart, 3 Wall. (U. 8. ) 646, 20 L. ed. 685 : Green wood v. Curtis, 8 Masa. 3 68, 4 AmD 145.
#Of contracts made in the Confederate States. Scheible v. Bacho, 4 1 Ala. 423.
#Of contracts made in the Confederate States. Scheible v. Bacho, 4 1 Ala. 423.
#Of contracts whose obj ect was the dismissal of criminal prosecutions. Harrison v. Baldwin, 6 Oh. C!r. Ct. 310, 3 Oh. C!r. Dec. 164.
#O f contracts whose obj ect was the dismissal of criminal prosecutions. Harrison v. Baldwin, 6 Oh. C!r. Ct. 310, 3 Oh. C!r. Dec. 164.
#Of agreements in violation of the revenue laws of foreign states. Kohn v . The Renalsance, 6 La. Ann. 25, 68 AmD 577.
#Of agreements in violation of the revenue laws of foreign states. Kohn v . The Renalsance, 6 La. Ann. 25, 68 AmD 577.
#Of con tracts made on Sunday. See Sunday [37 Cyc 569].
#Of con tracts made on Sunday. See Sunday [37 Cyc 569].
Line 294: Line 294:
# Contracts of married women. See Husband and Wife ( 2 1 Cyc 1 3 1 1 1. <br />
# Contracts of married women. See Husband and Wife ( 2 1 Cyc 1 3 1 1 1. <br />
# Agreements In- volvlng champerty. See Champerty a n d Maintenance I 1 0 6. <br />
# Agreements In- volvlng champerty. See Champerty a n d Maintenance I 1 0 6. <br />
# Contracts in restraint of trade. Union Locomotive. e tc .. Co. v. Erie R. Co., 3 7 N . J . L . 2 3 (where a contract between a railroad company In New Jersey and certain individuals Jctvl n �t the latter the exclusive right of transporting certain kinds of freight over the ra ilroad had been made ln New York. and had been sustained by the courts of that state. but In an action tor the breach of some of its prov isions In New Jersey I t was held that the contract was void because against the public policy- of New Jersey, and would not be en- forced, although valid where made ) ; Bath Gas Li ght Co. v. Rowland, 8 4 App. D l v. 5 6 3 . 8 2 NYS 8 4 1 [atr 1 7 8 N. Y. 6 3 1 mem. 7 1 NE 1 1 2 7 m e m I; Rouslllon v. Rouslllon. 14 Ch. D. 351 ( where parties had entered Into a n agreemen t I n France In restraint of trade and, al though the agreement was perfectly val id In France, where the common-law doctrine regard i n g !IUch con tracts as agai nst public pol- Icy Is unknown. It was held that the agreement would not be enforced by a n English court ) . <br />
# Contracts in restraint of trade. Union Locomotive. e tc .. Co. v. Erie R. Co., 3 7 N . J . L . 2 3 ( where a contract be - tween a railroad company In New Jersey and certai n Individual!! Jctvl n �t the latter the exclusive righ t of transporting certain kinds of freight over the ra ilroad had been made ln New York. and had been sustained by the courts of that state. but In an action tor the breach of some of It�< prov isions In New Jersey I t was held that the contract was void be- 􀏂ause against the public policy- of New Jersey, and would not be en- forced, although valid where made ) ; Bath Gas Li ght Co. v. Rowland, 8 4 App. D l v. 5 6 3 . 8 2 NYS 8 4 1 [atr 1 7 8 N. Y. 6 3 1 mem. 7 1 NE 1 1 2 7 m e m I; Rouslllon v. Rouslllon. 14 Ch. D. 351 ( where parties had entered Into a n agreemen t I n France In restraint of trade and, al though the agreement was perfectly val id In France, where the common-law doctrine regard i n g !IUch con tracts as agai nst public pol- Icy Is unknown. It was held that the agreement would not be enforced by a n English court ) . <br />
# Contracts givin g preferences to credi tors. Stri cker v. Tinkham. 35 Ga. 176, 89 AmD 2 8 0 ; Thurston v. Rosenfield, 42 M o. 474. 97 AmD 351 ; Moore v. ·non- nell, 31 N. J. L. 90; Varnum v. Ca mp, 13 N. J. L. 326, 25 AmD 476; Dear- lng v. McKinnon Dash, etc .. Co .. 1 6 5 N. Y. 7 8 , 8 7 , 6 8 N E 7 7 3 , 8 A m S R 70 8. <br />
# Contracts givin g preferences to credi tors. Stri cker v. Tinkham. 35 Ga. 176, 89 AmD 2 8 0 ; Thurston v. Rosenfield, 42 M o. 474. 97 AmD 351 ; Moore v. ·non- nell, 31 N. J. L. 90; Varnum v. Ca mp, 13 N. J. L. 326, 25 AmD 476; Dear- lng v. McKinnon Dash, etc .. Co .. 1 6 5 N. Y. 7 8 , 8 7 , 6 8 N E 7 7 3 , 8 A m S R 70 8. <br />
# Agreements to I nfluence public offlclals. Oscanyan v. Win- chester Repeating Arms Co. , 1 0 3 U . 8. 2 6 1 , 2 6 L. ed. 5 3 9 ( where plalntll'r. an offlcer o f the Turkish government, had made a contract with defendant. a manufacturer o f firearms. under which he was to receive a. commls· s l o n on such as he could Induce that gov.,rnment to pu rchase, and In a suit on the contract It was held by the supreme court of the United States that even were the contract made In Turkey a nd valid there the Turkish governmen t being willing that Its otncers should receive bribes f'or offlclal action. yet contracts of this kind being against the public policy of this country would not be enforced In our court s ) . <br />
# Agreements to I nfluence public offlclals. Oscanyan v. Win- chester Repeating Arms Co. , 1 0 3 U . 8. 2 6 1 , 2 6 L. ed. 5 3 9 ( where plalntll'r. an offlcer o f the Turkish government, had made a contract with defendant. a manufacturer o f firearms. under which he was to receive a. commls· s l o n on such as he could Induce that gov.,rnment to pu rchase, and In a suit on the contract It was held by the supreme court of the United States that even were the contract made In Turkey a nd valid there the Turkish governmen t being willing that Its otncers should receive bribes f'or offlclal action. yet contracts of this kind being against the public policy of this country would not be enforced In our court s ) . <br />
# Gambling contracts. See Gaming [·20 Cyc 9 2 3 ] . <br />
# Gambling contracts. See Gaming [·20 Cyc 9 2 3 ] . <br />
# Agreements com- pounding crime. Wight v. Rinds- kopt 43 Wis. 3 4 4 . 3 6 4 ( where a per- son brought a suit In Wisconsin for legal s.ervlces rendered defen dan t a n d the proof w a s that th e object of the service was th e compounding of a erlme, defendant and others b e i n g at the time under Indictment In the federal courts for violation o f the United States revenue laws. I t wa!l held that the agreement under wh ich the service was rendered was void for lllegallty, such contracts being contrary to public pol icy of t h e state. On rehearing I t was brought to the attention of the cottrt that the federal s tatutes expressly authorize such compromises with t h e govern- ment. with the consent o f the sccre- tary of the treasury and the attorney-general. The supreme court ad- mltted that the statute might be binding on the federal j udges ln ac- t lons ln their courts, but refused to give It any recogn i t ion In the state court, saying: "We could no more en force contracts compounding o r tending to compound crime comi ng from the federal jurisdiction. than contracts of polygamy from the ju- rlsdlctlon of Utah or of Turkey" ) . <br />
# Agreements com- pounding crime. Wight v. Rinds- kopt 43 Wis. 3 4 4 . 3 6 4 ( where a per- son brought a suit In Wisconsin for legal s.ervlces rendered defen dan t a n d the proof w a s that th e object of the service was th e compounding of a erlme, defendant and others b e i n g at the time under Indictment In the federal courts for violation o f the United States revenue laws. I t wa!l held that the agreement under wh ich the service was rendered was void for lllegallty, such contracts being contrary to public pol icy of t h e state. On rehearing I t was brou�tht to the attention of the cottrt that the federal s tatutes expressly authorize such compromises with t h e govern- ment. with the consent o f the sccre- tary of the treasury and the attorney-general. The supreme court ad- mltted that the statute might be binding on the federal j udges ln ac- t lons ln their courts, but refused to give It any recogn i t ion In the state court, saying: "We could no more en force contracts compounding o r tending to compound crime comi ng from the federal jurisdiction. than contracts of polygamy from the ju- rlsdlctlon of Utah or of Turkey" ) . <br />
#Provisions tor attorney' s fees in notes. See Corpus Juris, Bills and Notes § 164.</ref> The rule is not affected by the fact that the objectionable parts of the contract have been executed and that those re­maining are innocuous.<ref>Hope v. Hope, 8 De G. M. & G. 7 3 1 , 5 7 En KCh 565, 44 Reprint 5 7 2 ( where a hus6and and wife living ln France made a contract I n that coun- try which provided for two things which by the law of England were Illegal. namely, the collusive con- duct of a divorce suit. and the aban- donment b y t h e husband of t h e c U ll • t􀏃dy of his children. a n d t h e Eng- llsh courts refused to enforce any part o f I t , holding that, If a court of o n e country Is cal led o n to e n - force a contract en tered Into In an- other, It I s not enough that the con- tract should be valid according to the laws of the latter. for It any part of the contract Is Inconsistent with the law and the policy of the former the contract will not be enfor<'ed, even as to another part of It wh ich may not be open to th is objection, and may be the only part remalnlnr to be performed).</ref> A contract is not necessarily contrary to the public policy of a state merely because it could not validly have been made there; nor is it one to which comity will not be extended merely because the making of such contracts in the place of the forum is prohibited.<ref>International Harvester Co. v. McAdam, 142 Wis. 114, 1 20, 1U NW 1 0 4 2, 2 6 LRANS 7 7 4 , 20 AnnCas 6 1 4 ("There must be something inherently bad about it, something shocking to one's sense of what is right as measured by moral standards, in the judgment of the courts, something pernicious and injurious to the public welfare").</ref>
#Provisions tor attorney' s fees in notes. See Corpus Juris, Bills and Notes § 164.</ref> The rule is not affected by the fact that the objectionable parts of the contract have been executed and that those re­maining are innocuous.<ref>Hope v. Hope, 8 De G. M. & G. 7 3 1 , 5 7 En KCh 565, 44 Reprint 5 7 2 ( where a hus6and and wife living ln France made a contract I n that coun- try which provided for two things which by the law of England were Illegal. namely, the collusive con- duct of a divorce suit. and the aban- donment b y t h e husband of t h e c U ll • t􀏃dy of his children. a n d t h e Eng- llsh courts refused to enforce any part o f I t , holding that, If a court of o n e country Is cal led o n to e n - force a contract en tered Into In an- other, It I s not enough that the con- tract should be valid according to the laws of the latter. for It any part of the contract Is Inconsistent with the law and the policy of the former the contract will not be enfor<'ed, even as to another part of It wh ich may not be open to th is objection, and may be the only part remalnlnr to be performed).</ref> A contract is not necessarily contrary to the public policy of a state merely because it could not validly have been made there; nor is it one to which comity will not be extended merely because the making of such contracts in the place of the forum is prohibited.<ref>International Harvester Co. v. McAdam, 142 Wis. 114, 1 20, 1U NW 1 0 4 2, 2 6 LRANS 7 7 4 , 20 AnnCas 6 1 4 ("There must be something inherently bad about it, something shocking to one's sense of what is right as measured by moral standards, in the judgment of the courts, something pernicious and injurious to the public welfare").</ref>


==Agreements Relating to Realty==
==Agreements Relating to Realty==
The lex rei sitæ--the law of the place in which the property is--controls the title to, and the alienation and transfer of, land, and the effect and construction which is to be accorded to agreements intending to convey or otherwise to deal with it,<ref>U.S.-Brine v. Hartford F. Ins. Co .. 96 U. 8. 6 2 7 , 24 L. ed. 858.<br />
 
Ala.-Nelson v. Goree, 3 4 Ala. 6 6 5 .<br />
 
D. C.-Clark v. Harmer. 9 App. 1.<br />
Ida.-Hannah v. Ven11el. 19 Ida. 7 9 6, 1 1 6 P 1 1 6 , 1 1 7 [cit Cyc].<br />
lnd.-Swank v. Hufnagle. 1 1 1 Ind. 463. 12 NE 303; Wines v. Woods . 109 I nd. 2 9 1 , 1 0 NE 3 9 9 ; Fisher v. Parry. 68 Ind. 4 6"6; Bethell v. Bethel l. 54 Ind. 428, 23 AmR 650 ; Cable Co. ,. . McEi h oe. 5 8 I nd. A. 6 3 7 , 1 0 8 NE 7 9 0 .<br />
Iowa.-Brown v. Wm. Pearson Co . . 1 6 9 I owa 5 0 , 1 6 0 NW 1 0 6 7 .<br />
Mo.-Depas v. Mayo, 1 1 Mo. 3 1 4. 4 9 AmD 88. ·<br />
N. Y.-Abel1 v. Douglass, 4 Den. 3 0 5 ; Hawley v. James. 7 Pai ge 213. 3 2 AntD 6 2 3 ; Chapman v . Robertson. 6 Paige 627. 3 1 AmD 2 6 4 .<br />
Pa.-Jeter v. Fellowes. 3 2 P a. 465: Ross v . Barclay, 1 8 Pa. 1 7 9 . 5 5 AmP 6 1 6 ; Donaldson v. Ph i l l i ps, 18 Pa. 1 70 , 56 AmD 6 1 4 ; Kldd v. Amold, 1 8 Pa. Dlst. 4 6 2 , 3 5 Pa. Co. 667.<br />
Porto Rlco.-Amadeo v. Regi s t rar. 3 Porto Rico 1 3 4 ; U. S. Mortgage, etc., Co. v. Central San Cristobal, Inc .. 7 Porto Rico Fed. 6 9 3 .<br />
Tex.-Cantu v. Bennett. 3 9 Tex. 3 0 3 .<br />
Vt.-Baxter v. Willey, 9 Vt. %76. 3 1 AmD 6 2 3 .<br />
'''[a] Illustrations.'''--In an action for a breach of covenant of warranty where the grantor resided in Vermont, the grantee In New Hampshire, and the land was situated in Minnesota, it was held that the construction and force of the contract including the rule as to damages must be governed by the law of Minnesota; and where the referee failed to find what the law of Minnesota was, the supreme court of Vermont would not presume that it was the same as that of Vermont, but would recommit the case to the court below to determine the damages according to the rule in Minnesota. Tillotson v. Prichard. 60 Vt. 94, 1 A 302, 6 AmSR 95.</ref> the most frequent application of this rule being to decds, mortgages assignments for creditors, and agreements for sale. Where in the performance of a contract conveyances and transfers of property situated in several states are to be made, such conveyances and transfers must be made in accordance with the law of the place where the particular property is situated.<ref>Morgan v. New Orleans, etc., Co., 17 F. Cas. No. 9,804, 2 Wood 244.</ref>


==Agreements Relating to Personalty==
==Agreements Relating to Personalty==
The situs of personal property is by a fiction of law regarded, in the absence of anything requiring the application of the law of actual situs, as that of the domicile of the owner, which law ordinarily governs contracts relating to personalty.<ref>Buchanan v. Hicks, 98 A r 370. 378, 138 SW 177. 34 L 'R..A. :r-; UOO [ ci t Cyc ] ; Ames Iron Work.J Warren, 76 fnd. 51 2, 40 AmR 25 Arnold v. Eastin. 1 1 6 Ky. 688. 'lS s 855, 25 KyL 8 9 6 ; Speed v. ¥a.y. Pa. 91, 65 AmD 840. See Minor • :anhre l l . 3 7 M o . 3 5 0 . 9 0 A m D 3 9 0 • "here i t w a s h e l d t h a t t h e status r propert y , as real or pnr s o n a l . fol'lW ed the doml<:'ile of the o w n er ) ; oritz v. Ca nad a Wood Specialty Co;;.. , 9 OntWR 5 2 2 , 5 3 0 (where It i s ..ai : ' ' A contract respec t i n g per<>O nal property has n o s i t u s or lo- ut:(').<br />
 
'''[a] Criticism of rule.'''--With refnee to the purchase of chattels In other state by a New Jersey cor- . ratio n, t h e cou r t sai d : " I n tht> r e n t case the v i ce-cha n c e l l o r h e l d • t the law o f t h e d om i c i l e of th e 􀷬 · 􀆮 r must c o n t ro l ; that the - baser was a. New Jersey corpoon. and the t ra n sacti o n was gov-n"l edits bthy eo ur statu-te. The case el<d i ffi c u l ty w h i c h ��orlses I n -atermin i n g t h e ques t io n by the l a w • the domicile. N o t o n l y m a y the ties ha,·e different d o m i c i l es, as tha present case, but several per..- may be i n terested, ei the r as ndors o r vendees, each w i t h a d l f er m t domi ci l e. T h e d i fficu l t y Is n o t Met by ad op t i n g the law of t h e micile of the owner as the rule. 􀷮 r the very q u e s t i o n to be d e c i d e d who is t h e owner ? T h e ru l e wbieh looks t o the l a w o f t h e s i tus the merit of ado p t i n g the l a w the jurisdiction w h i ch has tbe ac-:ul! control o f the goods a n d the mt o:f ce:rt.alnty. It I s not nccesuy to th e d ecis ion o f t h e pres e n t -􀷯 to go as far as t he English · es bave gone I n fo l l o w i n g t h e .a ll' ot the si tus. The c o n t r a c t n o w ..ll que.sUon was m a d e I n Pen n s y l va,. and was I n tend ed by t h e part i e s be performed there ; t h e chattels 􀷭 a t the t i m e in Pen n s y l v a n i a , 􁦛 '�the�'Er e corenmsoevnet d otfo tthhies vsteantdeo wr; i thIn􁦜 lvanla there was n o tran sfer . Lbu t a mere contract of ball- - We t h i n k , In such a case, the ur .ot PeDJLSylvanla must con t r o l . " . -,-., Harding, 68 N. J. Eq. 622, 352.</ref> Hence as to a contract in relation to personal property situated at the date thereof in a foreign jurisdiction, the lex loci contractus will ordinarily govern.<ref> '''[a] Illustrations.'''--
# A contract in Mich igan for the pu rchase a plano, construed by the co u rts lha tate to be a mere ba i l m e n t nr the buyer n o right to mortgage will be so construed by the courts of Illinois on his removal to that state and an attempt to mortgage it. Waters v. Cox, 2 Ill. A. 129. Where a contract with reference to the title of tangible chattels situated in another state is made in that state between a resident thereof and a New Jersey corporation, and is to be performed there, the law of that state determines the effect of the contract. Lees v . Hard i n g, 68 N . J. Eq. 622, 60 A 352.</ref> But there is much conflict of authority on the question of how far a transfer of personal property, lawful in the owner's domicile, will be respected in the court of the country where the property is located and a different rule of transfer prevails.<ref>Green v . Van Buskirk, 7 Wall (U.S.) 139, 19 L. ed. 109</ref> The questions usually arise with reference to chattel mortgages, conditional sales, assignments for creditors, and assignments. There is no absolute right to have such a transfer respected, and it is only allowed on a principle of comity,<ref>Green v . Van Buskirk, 7 Wall (U.S.) 139, 19 L. ed. 109; The Marina, 19 Fed. 760.</ref> which must yield when the legislation of the state in which the property happens to be has prescribed a different rule.<ref>Green v . Van Buskirk, 7 Wall (U.S.) 139, 19 L. ed. 109; The Marina, 19 Fed. 760; Denny v. Faulkner, 22 Kan. 89; Greenville Nat. Bank v. Evans-Snyder-Buel Co., 9 Okl. 353 60 249.</ref>


===Carriage of Goods===
===Carriage of Goods===
The intent, obligation, and interpretation of a contract of carriage made in one state or country between citizens or residents thereof, and the performance of which begins in that country, is to be governed by the law thereof unless the parties when entering into the contract clearly manifest a mutual intention that it shall be governed by the law of some other country;<ref>U.S.-Eri e R . Co. v . Pond Creek Mi l l , etc .. Co. , 1 6 2 Fed. 8 7 8 , 89 MeCCA 568.<br />
 
Cal .-Bert o n n ea u v . S o u t h e rn Pac. Co . . 17 Cal. A. 4 3 9 . 1 2 0 P 5 3 .<br />
 
C o n n .-Ha l e v. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co., 15 Conn. 589, 39 AmD 398.<br />
Ga.-Southern Expres s Co. v .<br />
Hanaw. 1 3 4 G a . 4 4 5 . 6 7 SE 944. 1 3 7 AmSR 2 2 7 ; At l a n t a . e t c . , R. C o . v. B room e . 3 Ga.. J\. 641. 60 S E 3 5 5.<br />
Ill.-Pe n n s y .J va n i a C o . v . Fai rch i l d . 6 9 Ill. 2 6 0 ; G i n s b u r g v. Adam s Ex- Amerp ress Co . . 1 6 0 I l l . A. 6 6 6 .<br />
Iowa.-Ro b l nson v. Merchants' D e - spatch Tra n s p . Co . . 46 I owa 4 7 0.<br />
Md.-Laza rd v. Merchan ts' , e t c . . T r a n s p . Co. , 7 8 M d. 1 , 2 6 A 897.<br />
N. Y.-T o l e d o First Nat. Bank v. isShaw, 61 N. Y . 2 8 3 ; Valk v . Erie R. Co . . 130 App. Div. 446. 1 1 4 N Y S 9 6 4 ; Grand v. L i v i n gs t o n , 4 A p p . D i v . 589, 38 N Y S 490 [atr 1 5 8 N . Y . 6 8 8 mem, 6 3 NE 1 1 2 5 meml ; Robertso n v . Na t i o n a l SS. Co . . 1 App. D l v . 61, 37 NYS 69.<br />
N.D.-Han s o n v. Great Northern R. Co .. 1 8 N. D. 324. 1 2 1 NW 7 8 , 1 3 8 AmSR 7 6 8 .<br />
Okl.- tch ison, etc., R . Co. v. Lam- b e r t , 32 01< 1 . 6 6 5 . 1 2 3 P 4 2 8 .<br />
S. D.-M e uer v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 5 S. n. 668. 59 NW 945, 49 Am S R 8 9 8 , 25 L R A 8 1 .<br />
Tex.- Ryan v. Missouri, e t c . . R . Co., 65 Tl'x. 13. 57 AmR 589 ; Cantu Lamv . Ben n e t t . 39 Tex . 3 0 3 .<br />
Wash . -W A.ldron v. C"'anad ian Pac. R. Co. , 22 Wash. 253. 60 P 653.<br />
Wis.-Berger-Cri ttenden Co. v. Chi- cago, etc., R. Co .. 159 Wis. 256, 150 N W 4 9 6 .<br />
Eng.-Peninsular . etc. , Stea m Nav. C o. "· S h and. 3 Moore P. C. N. S. 272, 16 Reprint 1 0 3 .</ref> and this rule applies, although delivery of the goods is to be in another state.<ref>Bertonneau v. Southern Pac. Co., 17 C a l . A. 4 3 9 , 1 2 0 P 5 3 ; I l l i no i s C e n t . R. Co. v. B e e h e . 1 7 4 I l l . 1 3 . 50 NE 10 1 9 , 66 A m S R 2 5 3 , 4 3 L RA 2 1 0 ; Merch a n ts' D e s p a t c h Transp. Co. v . Fu rthma n n , 1 4 9 J l l . 6 6 , 36 NE 624, 4 1 Arn.S R 26 5 : Michigan C"'ent. R. Co. v. Boyd . 91 111. 268; Milwauk ee, etc., R. Co. v. Smith. 74 Ill. 197.</ref> For example, the validity of a limitation of the carrier's liability has been held to be governed by the law of the place where the contract is made;<ref>U. S . - L i verpool , e t c . . R. Co. v. Ph enix Ins. co· . . 129 U. S. an, 9 SCt 469. 32 L. ed. 788 ; Erie R. Co. v. Pond Creek Mill, etc., Co .. 162 Fed. 8 7 8 . 8 9 CCA ·6 6 8 ; The Carib Prince, 6 3 Fed. 266 ( rev o n other II'I'Ounds 1 70 U. S. 666, 18 SCt 758. 4 2 L. ed. 1 1 8 1 ] ; Thomas v. Wabash. etc., R. Co .. 6 3 Fed. 200 (atf 71 Fed. 4 8 1 , 1 9 GCA 8 8 ) .<br />
Cal.-Bertonneau v . Southern Pac . Co .. 17 Cal. A. 439, 120 P 68.<br />
Ga.-Western. etc.. R. Co. v . Ex- position Cot ton Mil ls, 81 Ga. 6 2 2 , 7 BE 9 1 6 , 2 LRA 1 0 2 .<br />
Ill.-Cohn v. Adams Express Co .. 170 Ill. A. 1 7 4 ; Fuller v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co .. 1 6 6 I l l . A. 2 7 9 ; Cl i n gan v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. , 163 Ill. A. 6 6 8 ; Ginsburg v. Adams Express Co .. 1 6 0 I l l . A. 6 6 6 ; Atland v. A tchi( son, etc., R. Co .. 1 6 1 Ill. A. 2 9 1 ; Brown v. Loulsv! lle, etc., R. Co .• 3 6 I l l . A . 1 4 0.<br />
Iowa.-Hazel v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 82 I owa 477, 48 NW 926; Tal- bott v. Merchant's DeS))atch Transp. Co .. 4 1 Iowa. 2 4 7, 20 AmR 5 8 9 ; MeCCA Daniel v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 24 Iowa 4 1 2.<br />
Ky.-Cleveland. etc., R. Co. v. Dru- len. 1 1 8 Ky. 2 3 7 , 8 0 SW 7 7 8 , 26 KyL 103, 66 LRA 275, 4 AnnCas 1102; Tecumseh M i l l s v . Louisville. etc., R. Co., 1 08 Ky. 5 7 2. 5 7 SW 9, 2 2 Kyl, 2 6 4, 4 9 LRA 5 5 7 .<br />
Mass.-Hooker v. Boston, etc. R . Co., 2 0 9 Mass. 6 9 8 . 9 5 NE 9 4 5 . Ann Cas l 9 1 2B 6 6 9 ; Bro ckway v. Amerp lean Express Co., 168 Mass. 257, 47 NE 8 7 .<br />
Mo.-Otis Co. v. Missouri Pac. R . Co., 1 1 2 M o . 6 2 2 , 20 SW 6 7 6 ; McLen- don v. Wabash R. Co., 1 1 9 Mo, A . 1 2 8. 95 SW 9 4 3 ; Hartman n v. Lap isShaw, ville, etc . • R. Co .. 3 9 Mo. A. 8 8 .<br />
N. H.-Ki mbal l v. American Ex- press Co" 78 N. H. 8 1 . 79 A 4 9 2 .<br />
N . Y .-Platt v . Richmond, etc., R . Co., 1 0 8 N. Y. 3 6 8 , 1 5 NE 3 9 3 ; Valk v. Erie R. Co . . 1 30 App. Dlv. 446, 1 1 4 N Y S 9 6 4 : Barnes v. Long Island R. Co .. 47 M isc. 3 1 8, 93 NYS 6 1 6 ( rev on other grounds 1 1 5 App. Dlv. H, 100 NYS 693 (aff 191 N. Y. 628. 84 NE 1108)]; Cappel v. Weir, 46 Misc. 4 4 1 , 9 2 NYS 3 65.<br />
Oh.-Knowlton v. Erie R. Co., 19 Oh. St. 260, 2 AmR 395. Contra Pennsylvania Co. v. Yoder, 26 Oh. Clr. Ct. 32.<br />
Okl.-Atchlson, etc., R. Co. v. Lamv bert, 32 Okl. 665, 123 P 428.<br />
S. C.-Elliot v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. , 9 4 S. C. 129, 76 SE 886, 77 SE 718; Fras ier v. Charleston, etc., R. Co . . 73 S. C. 140, 52 SE 964.<br />
Tex.-Ryan v. Missouri. etc., R. Co .. 65 Tex. 13, 57 AmR 589; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hambrick, (Civ. A. ) 97 SW 1072 ; Pittman v. Pacific Express Co . • 24 Tex. Clv. A. 696, 59 SW 9 4 9 .<br />
Va.-Adams Express Co. v. Green. 1 1 2 Va. 5 2 7, 72 SE 1 0 2 .<br />
Wis.-Berger-Cr! ttenden Co. v . Ch icago, etc. , R. Co., 1 5 9 Wis. 2 6 6, 1 5 0 NW 4 9 6.</ref> but the courts will not enforce a limitation of liability contained in a foreign contract where the permission of such limitation is regarded as against the public policy of the forum.<ref>Ga.-Adams Express Co. v. Chamberlaln-Johnso US n-Du Bose Co., Ga. 4 6 6 , 7 6 S E 6 0 1 .<br />
Ill.-Nonotu<'k Silk Co. v. Adams Express Co .. 2 6 6 Ill. 6 6 , 99 NE 8 9 3 .<br />
Ky.-Adams Express Co. v . Wal ker. 1 1 9 Ky. 1 2 1 . 88 SW 1 0 6, 2 6 KyL 1 0 2 6 , 67 LRA 4 1 2 .<br />
Nebr.-chlcago, etc . • R. Co. v. Gar- diner. 61 Nebr. 7 0 , 70 NW 6 08 .<br />
N. D.-Hanson v. Great Northern R. Co . • 18 N. D. 3 2 4 . 1 % 1 NW 78, 1 3 8 A m S R 7 6 8.<br />
Pa.-Stewart v. Bal timore, etc., R. Co . • 37 Pa. Su per. 2 7 3 .<br />
Tenn.-Loulsvll le, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 1 2 3 Tenn. 6 7 8, 1 3 4 SW 866.<br />
Tex .-Internatlonal. etc .. R. Co. v. Va ndeventer, 48 Tex. Clv. A. 366, 107 SW 6 6 0 ; St. Louis, etc . • R. Co. v. Hambrick, ( Civ. A. ) 97 SW 1072; Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Bur��:ess Co .• (Civ. A. ) 90 SW 189; Missouri. etc . • R. Co. v. Godalr Commn. Co.. 3 9 Tex. Clv. A. 2 9 8, 8 7 SW 8 7 1 .<br />
Va.-Adams Ex press Co. v. Green, 1 1 2 Va. 5 2 7. 530, 72 SE 1 0 2 felt Cyc ]</ref> In some cases, however, it has been held that such requirements of the contract as are to be wholly performed in the state of the forum are to be governed by the law of that state,<ref>Carter v. Southern R. Co., 3 Ga. A. 3(, 69 SE 2 0 9 ; Rixford v. Smith. 62 N. H. 366. 13 AmR 42; Brown v. Camden, etc . • R. Co .• 83 Pa. 3 1 6.</ref> and there is also authority to the effect that the contract should be construed by the state where the negligent breach causing the injury oecurs.<ref>Gray v. Jackson. 5 1 N. H. 9. 12 AmR 1 ; Barter v. Wheeler, 4 9 N. H . 9, 6 AmR 4 3 4 ; Hughes v. Penn- sylvania R. Co .. 202 Pa. 2 2 2 . 5 1 A 9 90. 97 AmSR 7 1 3 . 6 3 LRA 5 1 3 [atr 216918 ] ;U . B. 4 7 7. 2 4 SCt 1 3 2. 4 8 L. ed. Fai rchild v. Ph iladelphia. etc. . R. Co., 1 4 8 Pa. 5 2 7. 2 4 A 7 9 ; Fore- paugh v. Delaware, etc.1 R. Co .. 128 Pa. 217. 18 A 603, 16 AmSR 672, 5 LRA 5 0 8 ; Geyer v. U. B. Express Co.. 50 Pa. Super. 301 ; Zahloot v. Adams Expreas Co., 50 Pa. Super. 238; Frank v. Adams Express Co .• 1 7 Pa99. D. lsSet-ot. 46lr9.</ref>


==Defenses==
==Defenses==
A defense or discharge which is good by the law of the place where the contract is made or is to be performed is of equal validity wherever the question may be litigated.<ref>U.S.-camfranque v. Burnell. 4 F. Cas. No. 2,342. 1 Wash. C. C. 3 4 0 .<br />
 
Conn.-Hempstead v. Reed. 6 Conn. 480; Vermont State Bank v. Porter, 6 Day 316, 5 AmD 157 .<br />
 
Ga.-M issourl State L. Ins. Co. v. Lovelace, 1 Ga. A. H6. 68 SE 93.<br />
Me.-Very v. McHenry, 29 Me. 206.<br />
Mass.-Bianchard v. Russell, 13 Mass. 1, 7 AmD 106.<br />
N. H.-Hall v. Boardman. 14 N. H . 38 ; Dyer v. Hunt. 6 N. H. 4 0 1 ; Houghton v . Page. 2 N. H. 4 2, 9 A m D 30.<br />
N. Y.-Hicks v. Brown. 12 John�<. 142: Smith v. Smith, 2 Johns. 235. 3 AmD 4 1 0 : McMenomy v. Murray. 3 Johns. Ch. 43&. Okl.-Wagner v. Minnie Harvester C o . • 2 6 Okl. 6 5 8, 1 0 6 P 9 69. Pa.-Musser v. S tautrer. 192 Pa. 3 98 . 43 A 1 0 1 8.<br />
Vt.-Harrlson v . Edwards, 13 V t . 6 4 8 , 36 AmD 364.<br />
'''[a] Illustrations.'''--
# The law of the state where a written con· tract Is to be performed. that a con- temporaneous parol agreement Is not available as a defense to lt. prevails I n an action thereon. Musser v. Stautrer. 1 9 2 Pa. 3 9 8, 43 A 1 0 1 8.
#Where the laws of another state pro hac vice apply, an answer to a suit based on a contract to be performed In that state should be stricken, un- less a meritorious defense, as ad- j u d ged by the laws of that state. Is presented. Missouri State L. Ins. C o. v. Lovelace. 1 Ga. A. 4 4 8 . 68 SE 9 3 .
# A statute of a foreign nation forbidding actions on parti cular claases of contracts enters Into the contr<:�ct and will b e enforced I n a n action here. Camfranque v. Burnell. 4 F. Cas. No. 2,342. 1 Wash. C. C. 3 4 0. 6</ref> It is a well-settled principle that, if a party is justified as to a transaction in the country where it took place, he is justified everywhere.<ref>Shaver v. White, 6 Munf. (20 Va.) 110, 8 AmD 730. 8</ref> Thus if the defense of infancy is valid by the lex loci contractus it is good wherever the contract may be sued on.<ref>Thompson v. Ketchum. 8 Johns, (N. Y.) 1 89 , 6 AmD 332.</ref> And so it is of the defense of tender or payment.<ref>Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Palmer. & 2 M inn. 1 H. 5 3 NW 1 1 3 7, 38 AmSR 5 3 6A· Gilman v. Stevens. 6 8 N. H. 3 4 2 , 1 2 02 ; Warder v. Arell. 2 Wash. ( 2 Va. ) 282, 1 ArnD 488. 11</ref> But the defense must go to the contract and not to the remedy.<ref>Galliher v. State Mut. L. Ins. Co . • 150 Ala. 5 4 3, 6 4 8, 4 3 S 8 33, 12 4 AmSR 88.{{Quote|Where a law of another state Is relied on as a defense to a suit brought In this state. It must be shown that according to the lex loci contractus the contract was In- valid, or, If once valid. that I t has become extin guished. and therefore Is not I n legal contemplation a con· tract. If the foreign · law does not a trect the contrac t Itself, but onl y the remedy to enforce lt. we cannot regard lt h · for all remedlea on con- tracts, w ether m ade In or out ot this state, must be governed by our own laws, when the suit Is brought here. without regard to the remedies atrord ed bv the laws of other countries.}}
Galliher v. State Mut. L. Ins. Co., supra.</ref>


==Presumptions==
==Presumptions==
The presumption is that a conttact is governed by the law of the forum.<ref>Hutchins v. Hanna. 8 Ind. 5 3 3 : Fish v. Delaware, etc . . R. Co. , 168 App. Dlv. 9 2 . 143 NYS 3 6 & [aff 79 Misc. 636. H t N Y S 2 4 5. and rev on other grounds 211 N.Y. 374, 105 NE 661]; Canadian F. Ins. Co. v. Robinson. 31 Can . S. C. 488.</ref> The courts will not take judicial notice of the unwritten law of a foreign state, nor of the statutes of another state or territory, nor of the written laws of a foreign country; but in the absence of proof on the subject, they will generally presume that the common law is in force in such state, and the law of the foreign state, if different, must be pleaded and proved.<ref>Smith v . Whitaker. 23 I ll. 167: Davis v. Cress, 214 Mass. 879. 101 NE 1081; Dibert v . D'Arcy, 248 Mo. 617, 164 SW 1118.; Milly v. Smith. Mo. 86; Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Wells, 49 App. Dlv. 1 7 1 , 82 NYS 1088.</ref> When, however, the common law has never been in force in the plaee where the contract was made, and the foreign law is not proved, the court will follow the law of the forum.<ref>Ala.-Allen v. Pierce. 1ft Ala. 6 7 7, 42 S 858; Allen v. Caldwell. 1 49 Ala. 293, 42 S 866.<br />
 
Cal.-Norman v. Norman. 111 Cal 6 2 0, 64 P 1 4 3 .<br />
 
Ind.-Mendenhall v. Gately, 1 8 Ind. 149; Krouse v. Krouse. 48 Ind. A. s. 9& NE 262.<br />
Ky.-Hurdt v. Courtney. 4 Mete. 1 3 9 .<br />
N. Y .--Latham v. De Loiselle. 3 App. Dlv. 1126, 3 8 NYS 2 7 0 [atr 1 5 8 N. Y. 687 mem, &3 NE 1 1 2 7 mem ] .<br />
S. C.-Allen v . Watson, 20 S. C. L. 3 1 9 .</ref> If the contract is void by the lex fori, it devolves on the party seeking to sustain it to show that it is valid by the law of the place of making,<ref>Thatcher v. Morris, 11 N. 437; Kldd v. Arnold, 18 Pa. Dlst. 46'!, 465, 35 Pa. Co. 667 (quot CycJ ; Ohn v. Western Union Tel. Co .• 45 8. 344, 23 BE 148. &6 AmSR 783 ; South ern Pac. Co. v. Anderson. 26 Tex. Clv. A. 6 1 8, 83 SW 1 0 2 3 .</ref> although in Illinois it has been held that a contract will be presumed lawful where made.<ref>Miller v . Wilson, 1 4 6 tft. 623: 3 4 NE 1 1 1 1 . 37 AmSR 1 86 ; Raphael v. Hartman, 8 7 Ill. A. 6 8 4 . 111. 8 206.</ref> On the other hand if the contract is legal by the lex fori, it will be presumed legal by the lex loci contractus.<ref>Ellis v. Park, 8 Tex. 205.</ref> When the contract is silent on the subject, the place of the making of the contract is presumed to be the place of performance.<ref>Ala.-Schuessler v. Watson 3 7 A la. 9 8, 7 6 AmD 8 4 8.<br />
Ky .-Hyatt v. Commonw-I U BRnk, 8 Bush 193; Short v. Trabue f Mete. 2 9 9 .<br />
Md.-De Sobry v. De Lalatre. Harr. & J. 191. 3 AmD &56. Mlnn.-clement v. Willett. 101 Minn. 26 7. 1 1 7 NW 491. 127 AmSI 6 6 2. 1 7 LRANS 1094, 16 AnnCaJ 1 0 5 3.<br />
Mlss.-Jones v. Perkins. :11 9 Miss 139. 64 AmD 186.<br />
N. Y.-Potter v. Tal lman. 3& Ba.r't 182; Albera v. Sclarettl. 72 Misc. 49 131 NYS 889. Pa.-Ai lshouse v. Ramsay. 6 Wbarl 331 . 37 AmD 417.<br />
Utah.-Lawson v. Tripp. St Uta: 28. 37, 9 5 P 520 (cit Cyc).<br />
'''[a] Illustration.'''--Where a citizen of New York lent money to a firm in Iowa, and took a certificate of debt for the same dated at the office the firm in Iowa, and which did not specify the place of payment, the contract was an Iowa contract. Potter v. Tallman, 36 Barb. (N.Y.) 18.</ref> In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the place of performance, the laws of which govern the validity of a contract, is presumed to be the place of the common domicile of the parties.<ref>Bliss v. Haighton, 11 N.B 90.</ref> A contract good according to the law either of the place of contract or of performance will be presumed to have been made in view of the law of that place where it would be good.<ref>U. S.-Caesar v. Capell, 8 3 Ffd. 403.<br />
Ind.-cable Co. v. McE!hoe, 5 8 Incl. .-\. f37. 1 08 NE 790.<br /> Miss.-Brown v. Freeland. 3 4 Miss. 181.<br />
N. D.-U. S. Savings, etc., Co. v. Shain, 8 N. D. 1 3 6, 7 7 NW 1006.<br />
Pa.-Zenatello v. Hammersteln, 2 3 1 P a. 56. 79 A 922.<br />
Wash.-Crawford v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 86 Wash. 628, 150 P 1165, LRAI916D 732.<br />
'''[a] {{Quote|The law will not presume''' that the parties contracted to do an unlawful thing or violate a statutory prohibition in carrying out its terms, but that their purpose was the accomplishment of a lawful object and the performance of the agreement in a place or territory where its performance was permissible.}} Zenatel1o v. Hammerstein, 231 Pa. 56, 58, 79 A 922.</ref> But this presumption is rebutted by the fact that the parties intend that the contract shall be governed by the law of a particular state,<ref>J.I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Tomlin, 174 Mo. A. 512, 161 SW 286.</ref> although it is not rebutted by the mere fact that the parties have in mind a particular state for the place of performance.<ref>Canale v. Pauly, etc., Cheese Co., 155 Wis. 541, 145 NW 372.</ref> When the parties agree that the contract shall be governed by the laws of a particular place they are conclusively presumed to have known such law.<ref>Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Phinney, 178 U.S. 227, 20 SCt 906, 44 L. ed. 1088.</ref>


==Remedies==
==Remedies==
===General Rules===
===General Rules===
Th remedy on a contract both in substance and form is
 
regulated by the lex fori, and not by the lex loci
contractus,<ref>U.S- Scudder v. Union Nat. s. 406, 2 3 L. ed. 2 4 5j Aleundr!a Canal Co. v. Swann, o How. 83. 13 L. ed. 6 0 ; Wilcox v. 􀄘unt, 13 Pet. 3 7 8, 10 L. ed. 2 0 9 : U.S. Bank v. Donnal ly, 8 Pet. 361, 8 L. fd. 974 ; Wadsworth v. Henderson, II Fed. 447 [ rev on other grounds m u. 8. 264, s set 40. 2 9 L. ed. Ji7]; Burrows v. Hannegan, 4 F. C al!. So. UOS, 1 McLean 31􀚁 Ca mtr..
nque v. B11 M1el l, 4 F. 􀍋as. No. !.J H, 1 Wash . 340; Consequa v. Wlll;
nr· ' F. eas . No. 3,128, Pet. c. c. • ! ; Ex p. Helde1ba.ck, 1 1 F. Cas. No. 0%%, Z Lowell 626; Hinkley v. Martan.
1 Z F. Cas. No. 6 , 5 2 3 . 3 Mason II; Nicolls v. Rodgers, 18 F. Cas. 􀀪- lo.%60, 2 Paine 437; Wlllar.d v.
,l rr, %9 F. cas No. 17,679, 3 Mason<br />
Ala.-Swink v. Dechard, 41 Ala. 􀄙􀄚􀄛: .. Jones v. Jones, 18 Ala. 248;
""""man v. Munks, 8 Port. 8 4 .<br />
Ark.- Lawler v. Lawler, 107 Ark. W 1 1 1 3 ; Laird v. Hodges, 2 6 􀄖-:4k., H16 6A; mDJor d5a4n6 .v . Thornton, 7 Ark.<br />
Colo.-cockburn v. Kinsley, 25 olo. A. 89, 135 P 1 112.<br />
Conn.-lllustrated Postal Card, etc.,
o. "· Holt, 8 5 Conn. 1 4 0, 81 A 1 06 1 ;
F'awoton v. Middlebrook, 50 Conn. 4 4 ; ood v. Watkinson, 1 7 Conn. 500, l AmD 562 ; Atwater v. Townsend, 4
H IIIL 4 7, 10 AmD 9 7 ; Medbury v. opldns, 3 Conn. 472.<br />
Ga.-Tburman v . Kyle. 7 1 Ga. 628 · AGDaa.t lanUta,4 ; etc., R. Co. v. Tanner, 6S Cox v. Adams, 2 Ga. 1 5 8 ;
,... vSisE v95. 6De. Vaughn, 7 Ga. A. 3 24.<br />
Ill.-- Burcbard v. Dunbar, 82 Ill. 25 AmR 3 3 4 ; Mumford v. Canty,
.., Ill & 1 0, 99 AmD 5 2 5.; Roosa v. Cris;71􀀫t.o n17h ern111 . L4u50m, be65r ACmo .D. 164769 ;I llR. eAid.<br />
Iowa.-- Banco de Sonora v. Bank100
NW 6Cas32, u10a4l ty Co. . 124 Iowa 676, AmSR 367.<br />
Kan.-Den ny v. Faulkner. 22 Kan. l!: Hetrerl ln v. Shtslnderfer, 2 Kan. nl, t5 AmD 593.<br />
Ky.-- Davis v. Morton, 6 Bush 1 6 0. D'...􀄗 US: Woodson v. Gallipolis --.f a. .lion. 203 ; Gruhbs v. {larria.
arria.
1 Bibb 567; Stevena v. Gregg,
K73y0L. 267 ; Gibson v. Sublett, 4 KyL La.-Brent v. Shouse, 16 La. Ann. 1 1 0, 79 AmD 6 7 3 : Tatum v. Wright,
7 La. Ann. 3 6 8 ; Jackson v. Tiernan, 15 La. 4 85 ; Ohio Ins. Co. v. Edmondson.
6 La. 295.
Me.-Gross v. Jordan, 8 3 Me. 380,
2 2 A 260; Everett v. Herrin. 4 6 Me. 357, 74 AmD 4 66.
Md.-Mandru v . Ashby 1 08 Md. 693, 7 1 A 312; Dakin v. Pomeroy, Gill 1 i Traaher v. Everhart, 3 0!11
J. 2h ; De Sobry v. De La!stre,
Harr. & J. 1 9 1 , 3 AmD 5 6 5 .
Masa.-Pitkln v. Thompson,•
Pick. 6 4 ; Pearsall v. Dwight, 2 Mass. 84, 3 AmD . 3 5 .
63M5, lch.-MIIler v. Hilton, 1 89 Mich. 155 NW 5 7 4 ; Iron Wks. v. Til
den. 1 5 4 · NW 3 5 , 36 felt Cyc).
M!nn.-Lewls v. Bush, 30 Minn. 244. 15 NW 1 1 3 .
Mlss.-Ivey v. Lalland, 4 2 Miss. 4 4 4, 9.7 AmD 475. 2 AmR 6 0 6 ; Coffman
v. Kentucky Bank, 4 0 M iss. 90 AmD 3 1 1 .
Mo.-Thompson v . Chicago Traders'
Ins. Co.. 169 Mo. 1 2 , , 6 8 SW 8 8
Rube v. Buck, 1 2 4 Mo. 1 7 8 , .27 SW 4 1 2 . 46 AmSR 4 3 9 , 2 5 LRA 1 7 8 ; Edmondson
V; Ferguson, 11 Mo. 3 4
Tremain v. Dyott, 161 Mo. A. 2
1 4 2 SW 760 ; Johnston v. Gawtry,
Mo. A . 3 2 2 [ a tr 8 3 Mo. 3 3 9 ] .
N . J.-Jaqul v . Benjamin, 80 N. L. 1 0, 77 A 4 6 8 ; Cronan v. Fox, 50
JIn. s.L . 4 1 7, 1 4 A 1 1 9 ; Columbia
Co. v. Kinyon. 37 N. J. L. 33
Harker v. Brink, 2 4 N. J. L. 3 3
Gulick v. Loder, 1 3 N. J. L. 68.
AmD 7 1 1 ; Bullock v. Bullock, 5 1
J. Eq. 4 4 4 . 27 A 4 3 6 [ atr 52 N.
Eq. 6 6 1 , 3 0 A 6 7 6, 4 6 AmSR 6
27 LRA 2 1 3 j .
N. Y.-Re lly v. Steinhart, 21 7
Y. 5 4 9 , 1 1 2 NE 4 6 8 : Union Nat. Bank
v. Chapman, 1 69 N. Y. 5 3 8, 62 NE 672, 8 8 AmSR 6 1 4 , 5 7 LRA 6 1 3 [rev 52 App. Dlv. 67, 64 NYS 1 11 5 3 ) ; New
York L. Ins. Co. v. Aitkin, 1 2 5 N.
6 6 0, 2 6 NE 7 3 2 ; Hooley v. Talcott, 1 29 App. Dlv. 2 3 3, 1 1 3 NY8 8 20 ; Oans
v. Frank. 38 Barb. 3 2 0 ; Hodges
Shuler, 2 4 Barb. 68 [atr 2 2 N. 1 1 4 ] ; Stoddart v. Key, 62 HowPr 1 3 7 ; Andrews v. Herrlot, 4 Cow. 508
Peck v. Hozler, 1 4 Johns. 3 4 6 ; Scov!
lle v. Canfield, 14 Johns. 3 3 8,
AmD 4 6 7 ; Bird v. Carltat. 2 Johns. 3 4 2, 3 AmD 4 3 3 ; Smith v. Spl nolla. 2 Johns. 1 9 8 ; Lodge v. Phelps.
Johns. Cas. 1 3 9 : Holmes v. Remsen. 4 Johns. Ch. 4 6 0, 8 AmD 6 8 1 .
N . C.-carpenter v. Hanes, 1 6 7
C. 5 5 1 , 83 SE 577.
Oh.-Wurzel •v. Delph, 3 3 Oh. Clr.
Ct. 2 1 9 ; Thompson v. Citizens Nat.
Bank, 32 Oh. Clr. Ct. 1 3 1 ; The Bal timore
v . Levi, 2 Handy 3 0 , 12 Oh.
Dec. ( Reprint) 3 1 4 ; CUrtis v. HutchInson,
1 Oh. Dec. ( Reprint ) . 4 7 1 ,
WestLJ 1 3 4 .
Okl.-clark v. Marse!IIes First
Nat. Bank, 1 5 7 P 96 .
Or.-Jam!eson v. Potts, 66 Or. 2
1 0 5 P 93, 2 5 LRANS 2 4 .
. Pa.-Thornton v . Western Re11erve
Farmers' Ins. Co., 31 Pa. 5 2 9 ; Speed
v. May, 17 Pa. 9 1 , 65 AmD 6 4 0 ; Watson
v. Brewster, 1 Pa. 3 8 1 ; Kldd
Arnold, 1 8 Pa. Dlst. 4 6 ! , 35 Pa. Co. 6 6 7.i. Morgan v. Camden, etc .. R. Co 2 YR. Co. 9 7 ; Gilbert v. Black,
LegChron 1 3 2 ; Hoag v. Dessan,
P!ttsh. 390.
Phll!pplne.-Government v. Frank, 13 Philippine US. ,
S. C.-Pegram v. Williams, 38 s. C. L. 2 1 9 ; Allen v. Watson. 20 S. C.
L. 3 1 9.
Tenn.-McKissick v. M cKissick. 6
Humphr. 76.
Tex.-ch!cago, etc., R. Co. v.
Thompson, 4 1 Tex. Clv. A. 4 59, 9 3
SW 702.
Vt.-Murtey v. Allen. 7 1 Vt. 377.
4 5 A 762. 7 6 AmSR 7 7 9 ; Cartwright v. New York, etc., R. Co . . 59 Vt. 67 5 , 9 A 370 · Porter v. Munger, 2 2 Vt. 191 ; Sutrolk Bank v. Kidder, 12 Vt. 4 6 4 , 3 0 AmD 364 ; Pickering v. Flak, 6 Vt. 1 02.
Va.-Young v. Hart, 101 Va. 480,
4 4 SE 703 ; Union Cent. L. Ina. Co. v.
Pollard. 94 · Va. 1 4 6, 26 SE 4 2 1 , 64
AmSR 7 15, 36 LRA 271. See Bowman
v. M!ller. 2 5 Gratt. (66 Va. ) 33 1 , 1 8
AmR 6 8 6 (where It was questioned
Iwnhtoe ther a VIrginia court, examining contracts entered Into In a
foreign country, can do more than
atflrm the validity or Invalidity of
such contracts, or can, In such case,
administer any remedies other than
those a.trorded by the laws of VIrginia
) .
Wash.-La Selle v. Woolery, 1 4
Wash. 7 0 , H P 1 1 5, 5 3 AmSR 855,
11 Wash. 83 7, 3 9 P 663, 3 2 LRA 73.
W. Va.-Dav!dson v. Browning, 7 3
W . Va. 2 7 6, 8 0 SE 3 6 3 , LRA 1 9 l &C
9 7 6 ; Stevens v. Brown, 20 W. Va. 4 6 0.
Wls.-Internatlonal Harvester Co.
v. McAdam, 142 Wis. 1 1 4 , 124 NW
1 0 4 2, "2 6l..RANS 7 7 4 , 20 AnnCas 6 1 4 .
Wyo.-Studebaker Bros. Co. v. Mau, 1 4 Wyo. 68, 82 P 2 ( den reb 1 3
Wyo. 3 6 1, 80 P 1 6 1 , 1 1 0 AmSR 1 00 1 ) .
Eng.-Bullock v. Calrd, L. R. 10 Q. B. 2 7 6 ; De Ia Vega v. V!anna. 1
B. & Ad. 2 8 4 , 20 ECL 4 8 7. 1 0 9 Reprint
7 9 2j British Linen Co. v.
Drummona. 10 B. & C. 903, 21 ECL 3 7 7, 1 0 9 Reprint 6 8 3 ; Tr!mbey v.
Vlgnler, 1 Bing. N. Cas. 1 5 1 , 27 ECL 5 11 4, 1 3 1 Reprint 1 0 75, 6 C. & B. 2 5 .
2 5 ECL 303 ; Robinson v. Bland, 2
Burr. 1 077, 9 7 Reprint 7 1 7 ; Meyer v.
Dresser, 1 6 c. B. N. S. 646, 1 1 1 ECL 6 4 6 , 1 4 8 Reprint 1 2 8 0 ; Don v. Lippmann,
5 Cl. & F. 1 , 7 Reprint 3 0 3 ,
6 ERC 9 3 0 . [.a) :Porm of aotloa.-In an action
to en(orce a foreign contract. the
form o f B.!!tlon and the course o!
judicial proceedings are governed by
the law ot the place where the action h1 brought. Trasher v. Everhart. 3
Gill & J. ( Md. ) 2 3 4 ; Ayres v. Audubon,
2 0 S. C. L. 6 0 1 .
fbl :ti'OI'IIl of j114&'mnt O l' ·4eoNe. -The Jaw of the forum governs the
Corm of judgment or decree and the
method of carrying It Into execution.
Wick v; Dawson, 4 2 W. Va. 43, 2-l</ref> even where the contract was to be
performed in the place where it was made.<ref>Garr v. Stokes, 1 Harr. (Del. ) 403, 4 0 5 : Bacon v. Dahlgreen, 7 La. Ann. 5 9 9 ; Roberts v. Wilkinson, 6 La. Ann. 3 7 9 ; Murray v. Gibson, 2 La. Ann. 3 1 1 ; Collins Iron Co. v. Burksm, 10 Mich. 283 ; Jaqul v. Benjamin, 80 N. J. L. 10. 77 A 4 6 8; Armour v. Michael, 3 6 N. J. L. 9 􀃉 ; Harker v. Brink, 24 N. J. J􀷫. 3 3 3 ; Wood v . Malin, 1 0 N. J. L. 2 0 8 ; Gulick v. Loder, 13 N. J. L. 6 8, 23 AmD· 7 1 1 .</ref> A
contract made in a foreign country or state, but to
be wholly performed in the place where it is sought
to be enforced, is governed in all respects by the
law of the forum.<ref>Hibernia Nat. Bank v. La· combe, 8􀃊 N. Y. 367, 38 AmR 5 1 8 ; Everett v. Vendryes, 19 N. Y. 4 3 6 ; Thompson v . Ketcham, 4 Johns. ( N. Y. ) 2 8 5 ; Byers v. Brannon, (Tex. C!v. A. ) 30 SW 4 9 2 ; Young v. Hart, 1 0 1 Va. 4 8 0, H SE 703. v.</ref> This rule must be confined to
the remedies and does not apply to the rights arising
under the contract.<ref>Greenville Nat. Bank v. Evans Snyder-Buel Co., 9 Okl. 353, 363, 60 P 249. See Camfranque v. Burnel l. 4 F. Cas. No. 2. 3 4 2. 1 Waeh. C . C. 3 4 0 (where a foreign statute forbidding actions on certain classes of contracts was held to have a binding force on the contract).
{{Quote|I t has always been the policy of the courts to give force and ettect to a contract made In another state. If the con tract c o u l d be u pheld u n d e r the lti-W of such state. and rights once acquired In a jurisdiction under a contrac.t w i l l not be forfel tt>d slm- ply because the subject ot the con- tract I s by one of the parties moved I nto a forei gn j u risdiction. The right remains the same, regardleRs of t h e law ot the state to which t h e subject of t h e contract I s removed ; but the procedure of the latter state w i l l always obtain.}} Greenville Nat. Bank v. Evans-Snyder-Buel Co., supra.</ref> The lexi fori governs in determining the mode of trial, including the form of
pleading and the mode of redress.<ref>U.S.-U.S. Bank v . Donnelly, 8 Pet. 3 6 1 . 8 L. ed. 9 7 4 .<br />
Md.-Trasher v. Everhart . 3 Glll & J. 2 3 4 . •<br />
Pa.-Kid.d v. Arnold, 1 8 Pa. D!st. 4 6 2. 465, 3 5 Pa. Co. 667 [ quot Cyc] ; AtLewis v . Linton. 2 4 P a. Co. 1 8 8t Morgan v. Camden. etc., R. Co . • " Pa. Co. 9 7 .<br />
Vt.-Harr!son v. Edwards, 12 Vt. 6 4 8, 36 AmD 3 6 4 .<br />
Eng.-Ada.m v. Kerr, 1 B. & P. 860. 1 2 6 Repri nt 9 5 2.</ref> Questions as to the admissibility and effect of evidence relate to the remedy and are to be determined by the lex fori;<ref>j3 87. U. S.-Pr tchard v. Norton. 1 0 6 U. S. 1 2 4 . 1 set 1 0 2 . 27 L. ed. 1 0 4 ; Doll v. u. s. Equitable L. Assur. Soc.. 1 3 8 Fed. 705. 71 CCA 1 2 1 .<br />
Ala.-Helton v . Alabama Midland R. Co., 97 Ala. 275. 12 8 276. Conn.-Downer v. Chesebrough. a6 Conn. 39. 4 AmR 29.<br />
D. C.-National Express, e t c .• Co. v. Morris. 16 App. 262.<br />
Ga.-Richmond. etc.. R. Co. v. Mitchell. 92 Ga. 77. 18 SE 290.<br />
Ky.-Steele v. Curle. 4 Dana 381.<br />
Mass.-Hoadley v. Northern Transp. Co .. 115 Mass. 304. 16 AmR 106.<br />
Nebr.-Marvel v. Marvel. 70 Nebr. 4 98. 97 NW 6 40, 113 AmSR 792.<br />
N. Y.-Genet v. Delaware. etc.. Canal Co .• 56 N. Y. Super. 27. 4 NYS 880 [ mod on other gro unds 122 N. Y. 5 0 5 , 2 5 NE 9 2 2 ] ; Kirtland v. Wanzer. 9 N. Y. Super. 2 7 8 ; Bloomer v. Bloomer. 2 Bradt. Surr. 8 9 9 .<br />
Oh.-Tho mpson v. Citizens Nat. Bank, 3 2 Oh. Clr. Ct. 1 3 1 .<br />
Pa.-Musser v. Stautter, 1 9 2 Pa. 3 9 8. 4 3 A 1 0 1 8.<br />
R.I.-Winward v. Lincoln, 23 R. I 4 7 6 , 61 A 10 8.<br />
Va.-Unlon Cent. L. Ins. Co. v. Pol lard. 9 4 Va. 1 4 8 . 2 6 SE 4 2 1 . 6 4 A m S R 7 1 5 . 3 8 LRA 2 7 1 .<br />
Eng.-Wiedmann v . Waloole. [ 1 89 1 2 Q. B. 5 3 4 ; Brown v. Thornton. A . & E . 1 8 5 , 3 3 ECL 1 1 7. 1 1 2 Repri n 7 0 ; Acebal v. Levy, 10 B i n g. 3 76. 25 ECI. 1 8 0. " 1 3 1 Repri n t 9 4 9 ; Leroux v Brown. 1 2 C. B. 8 0 1 . 7 4 ECL 8 0 1 . 1 3 Repri n t 1 1 1 9 ; Bristow v . Sequevllle. 6 Exch. 2 7 6, 1 6 5 Reprint 1 1 8 ; Baln v. Whi tehaven . t>tc.. R. Co., 3 H. L. Cas. 1 . 1 0 Reprint 1 .<br />
"Whether a. witness Is competent or not : whether a certain matter re- quires t o be p roved by writin g or not : whether certain evidence proves a certai n tact or not : that Is to be determined b y the law o f the country where the question arises:· Per Lord Brougham In Baln v. Whi tehaven etc . • R. Co . • 3 H. L. Cas. 1, 1 9 , 10 Reprint 1 .<br />
'''[a] {{Quote|This is well illustrated''' in Leroux v. Brown. 1 4 Eng. L. & Eq. 247, In which It was held that an ac- tlon can not be mai n ta i ned In the courts ot England upon a parol con- trac t made In France. which was not to be performed w ! t:b ! n one year from the mak i n g thereof. although the contract was val i d by the laws of France. The case turned upon the question whether the statute made v o i d suc h contracts. It I t made them \" old. then, Inasmuch as the law of France governed the contract. the suit could be maintained. but It the statute appl ied to the remedy mere- ly. then, Inasmuch as the law of England governed the course of pro- cedure. no recoverv could be had.}} Marvel v. Marvel. 'TO Nebr. 49 8. 501. 97 NW 640. 113 AmSR 792.<br />
'''[b] Parol evidence.'''--The question whether a contract may be proved by parol. or whether written evidence must be adduced. and the question whether parol evidence may be received to show the actual agreement of the partlee to a blank Indorsemen t o f a negotiable Instrument, must be determined by the law of the state where the action I s brought. and not by that of the state where the eon - tract was made. Downer v. Chese- brough, 38 Conn. 8 9 . 4 AmR 29.</ref> this rule extends also to presumptions<ref>Hoadley v. Northern Transp. Co., 115 Mass. 804, 15 AmR 106.</ref> and
burden of proof.<ref>Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Broome, 3 Ga. A. 641, 60 SE 355.</ref>


===Particular Matters Affecting Remedy===
===Particular Matters Affecting Remedy===
====Statutes of Limitations====
====Statutes of Limitations====
Statutes of limitations, unless they discharge the debt, go merely to the remedy, and questions arising under them are to be determined by the law of the forum. And this rule applies to actions on foreign judgments or to those of courts of record of sister states as well as to actions on conventional contracts. But if the statute has run its course in the jurisdiction where the contract was made, and its effect there is to extinguish the obligation, this goes to the right and not merely to the remedy; and no action can thereafter be maintained on the contract in another jurisdiction. The validity of a contract limiting the time for bringing action is governed by the law of the forum.<ref>Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Godair Commn. Co., 3 & Tex. Clv. A. 298, 87 S W 871.</ref> In some states, by express statutory provision, foreign statutes of limitation may be pleaded.


====Exemption Laws====
====Exemption Laws====
Exemption laws are considered as statutes affecting the remedy only, and have no extraterritorial force. Questions of exemption, therefore, are to be determined solely by the laws of the forum.
 


====Discharge in Bankruptcy or Insolvency====
====Discharge in Bankruptcy or Insolvency====
In an action on a contract defendant cannot set up as a defense a discharge under the bankruptcy or iosolvency laws of another state or country, unless the debt was created within the jurisdiction of the court granting the discharge, or unless the creditor voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of such court. A discharge under the Federal Bankruptcy Law, however, is available in any state.
 


====Protection from Civil Arrest====
====Protection from Civil Arrest====
The lex fori, and not the lex loci contractus, applies in regard to defendant's protection from arrest on civil process, inasmuch as such arrest is of the remedy and not of the right.


====Whether Instrument Is a Specialty====
====Whether Instrument Is a Specialty====
The remedy on a contract under seal, and the ques­tion whether a contract is under seal, are determined by the lex fori. If an instrument has a scrawl instead of a seal, it must be treated as a simple contract and sued on as such in a jurisdiction where a scrawl is not regarded as sufficient to create a specialty, whatever may be the lex loci contractus.<ref>Douglas v. Oldham, 6 N.H. 150; Andrews v. Herriot, 4 Cow. (N.Y.) 608.</ref>
 


====Whether Remedy Is at Law or in Equity====
====Whether Remedy Is at Law or in Equity====
If, where a contract is sought to be enforced, the remedy is in equity, a suit in equity must be brought, although the remedy may be at law in the jurisdiction where tlte contract was made.<ref>Burchard v. Dunbar, 82 Ill. 460, 25 AmR 334; Halley v. Ball, 66 Ill. 250.</ref>
 


=====Parties=====
=====Parties=====
So also the question as to who are the proper parties to the action is to be determined by the lex fori. And that law determines whether a suit is to be brought in the name of the assignor of the contract to the use of the assignee, or whether it shall be brought in the name of the assignee.
 


==Conflict of Laws as to Time==
==Conflict of Laws as to Time==
===In General===
===In General===
The validity of an agreement depends on the state of the law at the time it was entered into. A contract will be construed according to the law of the state, as interpreted by its courts, at the time the contract was made, and not in accordance with subsequent contrary decisions. The organization of a territory as a state will not affect rights under the existing contracts which are expressly saved.
 


===Agreement Illegal When Made but Afterward Legalized===
===Agreement Illegal When Made but Afterward Legalized===
If an agreement was illegal by statute, or on grounds of public policy, when made, it is not, according to the great weight of authority, rendered legal by repeal of the statute or by a subsequent change in public or legislative poliey, although a contract which provides for something known to the parties to be illegal at the time being done in the event and only in the event of ita becoming lawful is good, unless the thing is
of snch a character that its becoming lawful cannot be seriously contemplated. And where a person has received a benefit under an illegal contract, a promise by him to pay therefor, although made after the repeal of the statute which rendered the contract illegal, is not supported by a sufficient consideration.<ref>Ludlow v. Hardy, 38 Mich. 690; Puckett v. Alexander, 102 N.C. 95, 8 SE 767, 3 LRA 43; Dever v. Corcoran, 8 N.B. 338.</ref>


===Agreement Legal When Made but Afterward Prohibited===
===Agreement Legal When Made but Afterward Prohibited===
So a change in the law oannot make an agreement illegal which was legal when it was made, although it may be rendered unenforceable. Therefore, where an agreement is legal when entered into, and is afterward made illegal by statute, acts done under it while it remained legal are legal; and a contract that is valid when made is not affected by a change in the public policy of the state.<ref>Stephens v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 109 Cal. 86, 41 P 783, 50 AmSR 17, 29 LRA 751.</ref> An agreement made after the passage of a prohibiting statute, but before the act went into effect, is not affected by it.<ref>Armstrong v. Bufford, 51 Ala 410.</ref> But a contract is discharged by illegality supervening subsequently to the time of contracting, which may occur by a new statute or other act of public authority rendering the performance legally impossible,<ref>See [[Contracts/Illegality|Illegality]]</ref> unless the discharge is prevented by the constitutional prohibition of laws impairing the obligation of contracts.
 
 
 
 
 


==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}
Please note that all contributions to Wiki Law School are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (see Wiki Law School:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

Templates used on this page:

Retrieved from "https://www.wikilawschool.net/wiki/Contracts/Governing_law"