| Latest revision |
Your text |
| 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 374: |
Line 374: |
| # 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. | | # 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 . | | #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.}} | | # 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 brou��rht here. without regard to the remedies atrord ed bv the laws of other countries.}} |
| Galliher v. State Mut. L. Ins. Co., supra.</ref> | | 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;71t.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=== |
