Contracts/Governing law

	; Contracts Treatise; Table of Contents
	Contracts Outline
	Introduction and Definitions
	Introduction
	Definitions
	Elements
	Contract law in the United States
	Contract formation
	Parties
	Offer
	Acceptance
	Intention to Bind
	Formal requisites
	Mailbox rule
	Mirror image rule
	Invitation to deal
	Firm offer
	Consideration
	Consent
	Implication-in-fact
	Collateral contract
	Modification
	Merger
	Uniform Commercial Code
	Uniform Commercial Code
	Course of dealing
	Course of performance
	UCC-1 financing statement
	Uniform Commercial Code adoption
	Defenses against formation
	Lack of capacity
	Duress
	Undue influence
	Illusory promise
	Statute of frauds
	Uncertainty
	Non est factum
	Contract interpretation
	Governing law
	Construction and Operation
	Parol evidence rule
	Contract of adhesion
	Integration clause
	Contra proferentem
	Excuses for non-performance
	Mistake
	Misrepresentation
	Frustration of purpose
	Impossibility
	Impracticability
	Illegality
	Unclean hands
	Unconscionability
	Accord and satisfaction
	Rights of third parties
	Privity of contract
	Assignment
	Delegation
	Novation
	Third-party beneficiary
	Performance or Breach
	Necessity of performance
	Sufficiency of performance
	Anticipatory repudiation
	Cover
	Exclusion clause
	Efficient breach
	Deviation
	Fundamental breach
	Termination
	Termination
	Rescission
	Termination and rescission
	Abrogation and rescission
	Subsequent contract
	Termination
	Forfeiture
	Remedies
	Restitution
	Specific performance
	Liquidated damages
	Punitive damages
	Quasi-contractual obligations
	Estoppel
	Quantum meruit
	Actions
	Actions in General
	Parties to Action
	Pleading
	Evidence
	Questions of Law and Fact
	Instructions
	Trial and Judgment

General Rules

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,^[1] 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.^[2] 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.^[3] The intention of the parties may be either expressed or implied from their acts and conduct at the time of making the contract.^[4] Parties to a contract may contract with reference to the laws of any state or country, if they have a substantial connection with the subject matter.^[5]

Place of contract

For Construction of contract as to place where made see Place of Making.

The act of the parties in entering into a contract at a particular place, in the absence of anything shown to the contrary, sufficiently indicates their intention to contract with reference to the laws of that place; hence the rule, as it is usually stated, that a contract as to its validity and interpretation is governed by the law of the place where it is made—-the lex loci contractus,^[6] or, more accurately, that contracts to be governed as to their nature, validity, and interpretation by the law of the place where they made, unless the contracting parties clearly appear to have had some other place in view.^[7] The presumption recognized by these statements, that the proper law of the contract is the law of the country where the contract is made, applies with special force when the contract is to be performed wholly in the country where it is made, or may be performed anywhere; but it may apply to a contract partly or even wholly to be performed in another country.^[8]

Place of performance

When the contract is made in one country and is to be performed either wholly or partly in another, the proper law of the contract, especially as to the mode of performance, may be presumed to be the law of the country where performance is to take place, the lex loci solutionis.^[9] This rule yields to a contrary intent of the parties,^[1] although it has been said that, "to show that the parties did not intend the place of performance to be the place of the contract, when void at the place of performance, it must clearly appear that they intended to be governed by the law of the place where . . . [the contract] was made."^[10]

Neither place of contract nor place of performance controlling

Neither the place where the contract is made nor the place at which it is to be performed is conclusive as to the law by which the parties intended the contract to be governed,^[11] but both are merely important indicia of such fact.^[12]

Performance in several states

While in numerous cases an entire contract to be performed partly in the state where made and partly in another state has been held to be governed by the law of the place of making,^[13] and there are other decisions to the effect that each portion is to be governed by the laws of the state in which that portion is performed,^[14] the better rule would seem to be that the presumed intention of the parties, gathered from the attending circumstances, is to be taken as controlling.^[15]

Interstate commerce

A federal court has refused to apply the law of the state where a contract was made in determining the validity of a contract held by it to relate to interstate commerce,^[16] and has held that the validity of a contract in interstate commerce made by a state corporation is not determined by the law of the state, but by general law, and that if any statute applies it must be federal.^[16]

Place of enforcement

Matters relating to the remedies on contracts are governed by the law of the forum without regard to where the contract is made or is to be performed.^[17]

Domicile of parties

The law of the domicile of the party does not necessarily govern the contract or determine their rights or obligations. The question is where was it made or where was it to be performed, as the case may be.^[18]

Express provision in contract

Where the parties have expressly provided that the contract shall be governed by the law of a particular country, this intention will as a rule be carried out by the courts,^[19] and a party is bound by his choice.^[20] "Parties may substitute the laws of another place or country, than that where the contract is entered into, both in relation to the legality and extent of the original obligation, and in relation to the respective rights of the parties, for a breach or violation of its terms."^[21] This is part of the jus gentium (Latin for "law of nations"), and is enforced ex comitate (out of comity or courtesy), when the enforcement of the contract is sought in the courts of a country governed by a different rule than the local or adopted law of the contract.^[22]

Implied provision in contract

The contract may impliedly prescribe the law. Where the intention is not expressed, it is to be inferred from the terms and nature of the contract and the general circumstances of the case, and such inferred intention determines the proper law of the contract.^[23]

Comity basis of all rules

Contracts made in a foreign jurisdiction are recognized and enforced because of comity, but not as a matter of right.^[24] Since the law of one state has, proprio vigore, no force or authority beyond the jurisdiction of its own courts,^[25] comity is overruled by positive law,^[26] and it is left to each state or nation to say how far it will be recognized, and to what extent it will be permitted to control its own laws,^[27] but in some instances the enforcement of a foreign contract,^[28] or the recognition of the lex loci contractus,^[29] has been regarded as a matter of common justice.

Fact of Agreement

Capacity of Parties

Form and Execution

Revenue stamps

Legality

General Rules

Agreements Contrary to Good Morals

Agreements Injurious to the State or Its Citizens

Agreements Contrary to Constitution or Legislation of State

Agreements Contrary to Public Policy

Agreements Relating to Realty

Agreements Relating to Personalty

Carriage of Goods

Defenses

Presumptions

Remedies

General Rules

Particular Matters Affecting Remedy

Statutes of Limitations

Exemption Laws

Discharge in Bankruptcy or Insolvency

Protection from Civil Arrest

Whether Instrument Is a Specialty

Whether Remedy Is at Law or in Equity

Parties

Conflict of Laws as to Time

In General

Agreement Illegal When Made but Afterward Legalized

Agreement Legal When Made but Afterward Prohibited

References

↑ ^1.0 ^1.1 "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.
↑ International Harvester Co. v. McAdam, 142 Wis. 114, 118, 124 NW 1042, 26 LRANS 774, 20 AnnCas 614.

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.

[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.
↑
U.S.-O w e n v. G i l e s . 1 5 7 Fed. 8 2 5 , 86 CCA 1 8 9
I o w a.-Ba nco d e S o n o ra v . Ba n kers' M ut. Casual ty Co., 1 2 4 Iowa 6 7 6 . 1 3 􀁋 . AmSR 3 6 7 .
Ky.-- Union Cent. L. Ins. Co., 143 Ky. 640, 136 SW 101 4, 1015, 33 LRANS 881 [quot Cyc]; Davis v. Morton, 5 Bus h 160, 96 AmD 345.
Mass.-HIJI v. Chase, 143 Mass. 1 2 9 , 9 NE 30 ; Stebbins v. Leowolf, 3 Cush. 137.
Mo.-Thompson v. Chicago Trad- ers' I ns. Co. , 169 Mo. 12, 68 SW 8 8 9 .
N. Y.-Dicklnson v. Edwards, 77 N. Y. 673, 33 AmR 671.
[a] Illustrations.--
1. Where two citizens of France, at Parla1 entered Into a marriage contract ror com- munltf of goods according to the law o Paris, and the husband after- ward deserted his wife. went to New York,· and after remaining there many years, died there, It was held that the rights of the wife In the distribution of the es tate must be go verned by the law ot' France. De- Petcouche v. Savetler, 3 Johns. Ch. <N. Y ) 190, 8 AmD 478 .
2. Where plaintiffs who lived In New York made a contract In New York with defendants, whereby plalntltrs paid certain bllls for defendants' accom- modatlon, the money being paid In New York, It was held In an action In New York to recover the amount paid on such bllls that the law ot' New York, and not that ot' Mi s s ouri , governed the c ontract notwlthstand- lng defendants resided In Missouri, and the bills were drawn there. Sul'- dam v. Barber, 18 N. Y. 468, 75 AmD 254 [rev 13 N. Y. Super. 34].
3. AnWhere mo ney was boiTowed In Mas- sachusetts ot' A by an agent ot' B. a resident of New Hampshire, the agen t bei ng employed by B t'or the purpose, and the latter, after recelv- Mclng the money fro m the agent to whom It had been delivered by A. signed and returned/ to A a recelnt sent with the money, It was held that the contract was made In Mas- sachusetts and governed by the laws thereof, and that the fac t that the receipt was si gned In New Hamp- shire was Immaterial. HJII v. Chase, 143 Mass. 129. 9 NE 30.
4. A statute of the state In which an action Is tried. prov iding that time Is not <it' the essence of a contract unless by Its terms e_xpressly so provid ed, has no application where the con tract In suit was made and was to be per- t'ormed In another state. Owen v. Giles , 157 Fed. 825. 85 CCA 189.
5. It' by the lex loci the day ot' performance of a contract Is extended to Monday, when the contem plated <lay o t' performance fall!! on Sunday, that rule will be anplled In the place where the contract was to be per- formed. Stebbi ns v. Leowolf, 3 Cush. ( Mass.) 137. Bertonneau
↑ Bertonneau v. Southern Pac. Co., 17 Cal . A. 439, 120 P 53.
SeeExpress provision in contract.
See Implied provision in contract.
↑ Crawford v. Seattle, etc., R. Co. , 86 Wash. 6 2 8, 1 5 0 P 1155, LRA 1 916D 732.
↑ U.S.-- Northwestern :Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. McCue, 2l!3 U. S. 2 34, 32 SCt 220, 56 L. ed. 419, 38 LRANS 57; Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 1 7 9 U. S. 262, 21 SCt 106, 46 L. ed. 181: Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U. S. 124, 1 SCt 102. 27 L. ed. 104; Seudder v. Union Nat. Bank, 91 U. 8. 406, 23 L. ell- 246; •Wllcox v. Hunt. 13 Pet. 378. 10 L. ed. 209 ; Cox v. U. S., 6 Pet. 172, 8 L. ed. 369 ; Harrison v. S terry, 6 Cranch 289, 3 L. ed. 10 4 ; I n re Hartdagen, 189 Fed. 546 ; Bel l v. New York Safety Steam Power Co .. 183 Fed. 274; Shaw v. Cl eveland, etc .. R. Co., 173 Fed. 746, 97 CCA 620; Owen v. Gi les, 157 Fed. 825, 86 CCA 189; The l<'rl, 1,54 Fed. 333, 83 CCA 205 [certiorari den 201 U. S. 431, 28 SCt 761, 52 L. ed. 1 1 3 6 ]; Schlnottl v. Whitney, 130 Fed. 780 i. Provident Sav. L. Assur. Soc. v. ttadley, 102 Fed. 856, 43 CCA 25 lal'f 90 Fed. 390. an d certiorari den 179 U. S. 686, 21 SCt 919, 45 L. ed. 3861; Potter v. The Majestic, 60 Fed. 624. 9 CCA 16 1 , 23 LRA 746 [rev on o ther grounds 166 U. S. 375, 17 set 697, 41 L. ed. 1039]; Brown v. American Finance Co .. 31 Fed. 616, 24 Bla􀀮ht'. 384 ; Burrows v. Hannegan, 4 F. Cas. No. 2.20!: 1 McLean 315: Green v. Collins, 10 1. Cas. No. 6,756. 3 Clll't. 494; Nicolls v. Rodgers, 18 F. Cas. No. 10,26 0, 2 Paine 437 ; Pope v. Nicker- son, 19 F. Cas. No. 11,274. 3 Story 465: Van Rel msdyk v. Kane, 28 F. Cas No 16 871 1 Gall 371
Ala.-N e w York L. · Ins : Co. v. Scheuer, 73 S 409 ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Favlsh. 71 S 183: Warrior Coal , etc. , Co. v. Augusta Nat. Bank, 53 S 997; Peet v. Hatcher. 112 Ala. 514, 21 S 7 1 1 , 67 AmSR 46· Swinks v. Dechard, 41 Ala. 258; Evans v. Kittrell, 33 Ala. 449; Walker v. Forbes, 31 Ala. 9; McDougald v. Rutherford, 30 Ala. 253; Jones v. Jones. 18 Ala. 248; Peake v. Yeldell, 17 Ala. 636; Thomas v. Degratr en- reid, 17 Ala . 602; Goodman v. Munks, 8 Port. 8 4 .
Ark.-Lawler v. Lawler, 107 Ark. 70, 153 SW 1113 ; Rock Island Plow Co. v. Masterson, 96 Ark. 446, 132 SW 216: Hough v. Mau pin, 73 Ark. 518, 84 SW 717 ; Howcott v. Kil bourn, 44 Ark. 213; Laird v. Hodges. 26 Ark. 366 ; Lane v. Levllllan, 4 Ark. 7 6, 37 AmD 769.
Cal.- Ailen v. Allen, 95 Cal. 184, 30 P 213. 16 LRA 646; Bertonneau v. Southern Pac. Co., 17 Cal. A. 439, 120 P .63.
Colo.--Cockburn v. Kinsley, 26 Colo. A. 89, 136 P 1112.
Conn.-Whlte v. Holly, 80 Conn. 438,- 68 A 997; Koster v. M lnett. 32 Conn. 246 ; Hale v. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co., 16 Conn. 539, 39 AmD 398; Phlladelnhla. Loan Co. v. Towner, 13 Conn. 24 9; Brackett v. Norton, 4 Conn. 617. 10 AmD 1 7 9.
D. C.--Croissant v. Empire State Realty Co .. 29 App. 538 ; Armstron g v. U. S. Bulldlng, etc., Assoc., 15 App, 1; Ha nsel v. Chapman, 2 App. 3 6 1 .
Fla.-Thompson v. Kyle, 39 F"la. 682, 23 S 12, 63 AmSR 193. Ga.-Flournoy v. J etrerson vllle Firat Nat. Bank, 79 Ga. 810. 2 SE 547; Champion v. Wilson. 64 Ga. 1 8 4 ; Davis v. De Vaughn, 7 Ga. A. 824. 66 SE 9 5 6 ; Missouri S tate L. I ns. Co. v. Lovelace, 1 Ga. A. H6. 58 SE 􀏇3.
Ili.-Walker v. Lovitt. 250 I ll. 6 4 3 , 9 5 NE 631 ; Benedict v. Dakin, 243 I l l. 384, 90 NE 712: Burchard v. Dun - bar, 82 Ill. 4 5 0, 25 AmR 334 ; Evans v. Anderson, 78 Ill. 568 ; Roundtree v. Baker, 62 Ill. 241, 4 AmR 697; Munsford v. Can t(• 60 I l l . 37 0; Lewis v. Headley, 36 II. 433, 87 AmD 227; Austedt v. Sutter, 30 Ill. 164: Me- All ister v. Smi th, 17 Ill. 328. 65 AmD 6 5 1 ; Phinney v. Baldwin, 16 Ill. 108, 1 AmD 62; S tacy v. Baker. 2 Ill. 417; Humphries v. Co111er, 1 Ill. 297; Bradshaw. v. Newman, 1 I l l . 133, 12 AmD 149: Horvitz v. Fred· son , 178 Ill. A. 303· Lumber Co., 146 I \ 1R. eAid. 3v7. 1N; oMrtchCeorny v. G riswold, 1 1 4 I l l . A. 666: Raphael v. Hartman. 87 I l l . A. 634 ; Waters v. Cox. 2 Ill. A. 129.
lnd.-Garrlgue v. Kellar. 1 6 4 Ind. 676, 74 NE 623. 108 AmSR 3 24, 69 LRA 870: Conkl in v. Co nklin, 64 Ind. 289 ; I<'arhnl v. Ram.see, 19 Ind. 400; Krouse v. Kr9use, 48. Ind. A. 3, NE 26! ; Beatty v. lflller, 47 Ind . 4 94 , 94 NE 897.
Iowa.-Boz·n v. Home Ins. Co .. 1! Iowa 299, 94 NW 849; Doyle v. Me Guire, 38 Iowa 410; Franklin v. Two good, 26 Iowa 620, 96 AinD 73; ),f<C. Daniels v. Chicago, etc., R. Co .. Iowa. 412; Bean v. Briggs 4 Iowa 464. '
Kan.-Hetrerlln v. Slnalnderte r, Kan. 401. 85 AmD 693.
Ky.-Elswick v. Ramey, 1 6 7 Ky. 639, 163 SW 761; Arnett v. Pinson. 108 SW 862, 33 KyL 3 6; Ford Buckeye State Ins. Co., & Bush 133, 99 AmD 663: Archer v. National Ina. Co . . 2 Bush ;.:26; Jameson v. Gregory. 4 Mete. 363; You ng v. Harris, 1-1 Mon. 447, 61 AmD 170; Cross v. Petcouche ree, 10 B. Mon. US; Johnson v. U. Bank 2 B Mon 310· Steele v Curle 4 Dana 3Rt· Cocke v. Conlgnlaker. A. K. Marsh. 254 : Grubbs v. HaiTIS. 1 Bibb 667;. Gibson v. Sublet t, 4 KyL 730.
La.-Pecquet v. Pecquet, 17 La. Ann. 204 ; H ollomon v. Hollomon. La. Ann. 607; Snears v. Shronshlre. 11 LL Ann. 669, 68 AmD 208: S. v. U. S. Bank. 8 Rob. 26 2; Shaw v. Oake[• 3 Rob. 361; Brlttgs f'ampbel , 19 La. 624: Buckner Watt, 19 La. 216, 36 AmD 67 1 : Jack son v. Tiernan. 15 La. 485; Gra.vea Roy, 13 La. 464. 33 AmD 668; AnWhere r'lrews v. His Creditors, 11 La. 464; King v. Harman, 6 La. 607. 26 AmD 486 ; Clague v. Their Creditors. 2 La. 114, 20 .AmD 300; Arayo v. Currel. La . 528, 20 AmD 286 ; Malplca v. Mclng Kown, 1 La. 2 48. 2 0 AmD 279; Miles Oden. 8 Mart. N. S. 214. 19 AmD 177: A.Ptor v. Price. 7 Mart. N. 40 􀆱 ;, Shltr v. Loui siana State Ins. Co. 6 Mart. N. S. 6􀁳9; Bell v. James. Mart. N. S. 74: Saul v. His Creditors. 5 Mart. N. S. 669. 16 AmD 212; Thorn v. Morgan, 4 Mart. N. s. 292. 16 AmD 173; Baldwin v. Gray, 4 Mart. N. 192, 16 AmD 169; Chartres Cairnes, 4 Mart. N. S. 1; Ol iver Townes, 2 Mart. N. S. 93; Brown Richardson, 1 Mart. N. S. 202: Evans v. Gray. 12 Mart. 475; Morris v. Eve11. 11 Mart. 730 : Whiston v. Stodder. Mart. 95, 13 AmD 281; Lynch v. Po!! tlethwalte. 7 Mart. 69, 12 AmD 495. Me.-Bond v. Cummlnii'S, 70 Me. 1 􀁴5; Kennedy v. Coch rane, 66 Me. 594; Whidden v. Seelye, 40 Me. 247, 6 3 AmD 6 6 1 .
Md.-Mandru v. Ashby, 108 Md 1193. 71 A 3 1 2; Dakin v. Pomeroy, Gill 1; Tra!!her v. Everhart, a Glll & J. 234 ;.. De Sobry v. De Lalstl"(', Harr. & oJ, 191. 3 AmD 655.
Mass.-Amerl<-an S pirits Mf111:. v. Eldridge, l!09 Mass. 690, 95 !I: 942: American Malting Co. v. Souther Brewing Co., 194 Mass. 89, 80 NE 52fl; Da niel v. Boston, etc .• R. Co 1 8 4 Mal's. 337, 68 NE 337; Mlttenthal v.· Mascainl, 183 Mass. 19; C6 NE 425. 97 mSR 404, 60 LRA 81!: Stebblmt v. Leowolf, 3 Cush. 137: Carnegie v. Morrison, Z Mete. Ill: Pitki n v. Thom pson, l3 Pick. Bulger v. Roche, 11 Pick. 36. Z2 AmD 359: Blanchard v. Russell, 13 Mass. 1, 7 AmD 106. M i ch .-Mi l lar v. Hilton, 189 Mich. 636, 155 NW 574: Douglass v. Pa.Jne. 1 4 1 Mich. 486, 1 0 4 NW 781 ; Tolman Co. v. Reed, 115 Mich. 71. 7Z NW 141310.4 ;6 8D aNWwso n2 4v6. ; PCeotlelrlnsosn ,I r1o1n0 CMoi. Burkam, 10 Mich. 283.
Mlnn.-Northwestem Fuel Co. Boston I ns. Co .. 131 Minn. 19. 164 NW 616.
Mlss.-Woodsen v. Owens. U 207 ; Partee v. Silliman. 44 Miss . 171; Brown v. Freeland, 3 4 Miss. 1 8 1 ; Brown v. Nevitt. 27 Miss. 8 0 1 ; Bank of England v. Tarleton, 23 M iss. 173; Martin v. Martin, 9 Miss. 176.
Mo.-Carey v. Schmeltz, 22\ Mo. 112, 119 SW 946; Thompson v. Chi 􁦰 Traders' Ins. Co., 169 Mo. 12. C8 SW 889; .Tohnstcm v . Gawtry, 8 3 Mo. 339; Sallee v. Chand ler, 26 Mo. 1!4; Houghtaling v. Ball, 19 Mo. 84, 5t AmD 331; Tremain v. Dyott, l6t :llo. A. 217, 14! SW 760; Kavanaugh "·SUpreme Council R. L., 158 Mo. A. U4, 1 38 SW 3 59; McKinstry v. Chlcqo, etc .• R. Co., 1 5 3 Mo. A. 5 4 6 , 134 8W 10 61: Robert v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 148 Mo. A. 96, 127 SW 925 ; Hubbard , •. Mobile. etc., R. Co .• !12 Mo. A. 459, 87 SW 52; Phamlx Mut. L. Ina. Co. v. Simons, 52 Mo. A. 357; Hartmann v. Louisville, etc., R. Co .. It Ho. A. 88; Kerwin v. Doran, 29 Xo. A. 397; Roach v. St. Louis Type Foundry, 21 Mo. A. 118; nan- cllor "· G 9 Mo. A. 1 0 2 ; State 'f. A. %63. State Ins. Co., 61 lZ. Stevens, 6S N. H. v. Costello, 48 N. Bliss v. BrainGodfrey. : Thayer Bl iss v. Hays v. King, H Okl. 1 8 0, 143 11 4 2 ; Wa�rner v. M i nnie Harvester Co., 25 Okl. 5 6 8 , 1 0 6 P 9 69 ; Westeru Union Tel. Co. v. Pratt, 1 8 Okl. 274. 8 9 P 2 37. 1 Or.-.Tamleson v. Potts, 56 Or. 2 1 0 5 P 93, 26 LRANS 24.
Pa.-Forepaugh v. Delaware. etc., R. Co., 1 2 8 Pa. 217, 18 A 603, 15 Am SR 672. 5 LRA 5 0 8 A · Tenant v. Ten- ant, 1 1 0 Pa. 478 , 1 5 3 2 ; GreenwnM '"· Kaster, 86 Pa. 4 6 ; Benners Clemens • . 58 Pa. 24; Speed v. Mny. 17 Pa. 91, 5 5 AmD 6 4 0; Watson Brewster, 1 Pa. 881; Dougherty Snyder, 16 Serg. & R. 84, 1 6 AmD 5 2 0 ; Mann v. Salsberg, 17 Pa. Super. 2RO; Robinson v. Kline. 21 Pft. Dlst. 8 3 9 ; Brewster v. Lyndes, 2 Miles 1 8 Robinson v. Kline, 39 Pa. Co. 328; llmWhltehurst's E�St .. 2 Pa. Co. 212, WkJyNC 403 : Roths.,hild v. RocheF- tf'r, etc .. R. Co., 1 Pa. Co. 620; Gil- bert v. Black, 1 LegChron 132 ; Hong v. Dessan, 1 Plttsb. 3 9 0.
R. I.-Bowler v. Emery, 29 R. :1 1 0. 10 A 1. S . C.-Galletley v. Strickland. S. C. 394. 64 SE 676: Pegram v. WI!- IIams, 3 8 S. C . L . 219; Gilliland Phillips, 30 S. C. L. 1 5 2 ; Weatherby v. Covington, 30 S. C. L. 27, 49 AmD 623 ; Ayres v. Audubon, 20 S. C. SOl ; Touro v. Cassin, 10 S. C. J •. 173, 9 AmD 6 8 0 ; Le Prince v. Guillemot, 18 S. C. Eq. 1 87.
S. D.-Sibley First Nat. Bank Doeden, 21 S. D. 400, 1 1 3 NW Meuer v. Chicago, etc .. R. Co .. 11 D. 94, 76 NW 8 2 3, 74 AmSR 774 Union City Commercial Bank .Jackson, 7 S. D. 136, 63 NW 648.
Tenn.-Ingram v. Smith, 1 Head 411; Pearl v. Hansborough. Humphr. 4 2 6 ; McKissick v. McKls- supsick, 6 Humphr. 76 ; Yerger v. Raus. 4 Humphr. 259.
Tex.-Fidellty Mut. Lite Assoc . Harris, 94 Tex. 2 5, 67 SW 635. AmSR 81 3 ; Cantu v. Bennett. 39 Tex. 3 03 ; Shelton v. Marshall. 1 6 Tex. 344; Crosby v. Huston, 1 Tex. 203; Saw- :ver v. El Paso. etc .. R. Co., 49 Tex. Clv. A. 1 08. 1 0 8 SW. 718.
Vt.--Cartwrlght v. New York, etc.. R: Co .. 69 Vt. 676, 9 A 370 ; Harrison v. Edwards. 12 Vt. 6 4 8 , 36 AmD 8 64 generSutrolk Bank v. Kidder, 12 Vt. 464, 36 AmD 364; Bryant v. Edson, 8 Vt. 325. 80 AmD 472.
Va.-Warder v. Arell, Z Wash. Va.) 282, 1 AmD 488.
Wash.--Crawtord v. Seattle, etc.. R. Co., 88 Wash. 628. 1 5 0 P 1 166, LRA1 9 1 6D 7 3 2: PhrenJx Packing Co. v. Humphrey-Ball Co., 58 Wash. 896, 1 0 8 P 962: Carstens Packing Co. Southern Pac. Co .. 68 Wash. 239, 1 P 613. 27 LRANS 975.
W. Va.-Davldson v. Browning. W. Va. 276, 80 SE 383. LRA1 9 1 976 ; Crumllst v. Central Impr. C'o.. 38 W. Va. 890, 18 SE 466, 46 AmSR 872. 23 LRA 1 2 0 ; Stevens v. Brown, 20 W. Va. 450.
Wls-Intematlonal Harvester Co. Wosv. McAda.m. 142 Wis. 1 14, 1 24 KW 1042, 2 6 LRANS 774. 20 AnnCas 814; Fisher v. Otis, 3 Chand!. 78. Wyo.-Studebaker Bros. Oo. v. Mau. 13 Wyo. 3 6 8 , 8 0 P 161, 1 1 0 AmSR 1 0 01.
Eng.--Chatenay v. Braslllan Sub- marine Tel. Co .. (1 8911 1 Q. B. 79; Gibbs v. La Socll!􀚄 Industrlelle, etc., 25 Q. B. D. 39 9 ; .Jacobs v. Credit Lyonnals, 1 2 Q. B. D. 6 89, 1 ERC 3 3 8 ; Lloyd v. Gulbert. L. R. 1 Q. 1 16, 6 B. & S. 1 00, 1 1 8 ECL 100. UZ Reprint 1 1 3 4 . 6 ERC 870 ; In Bonaclna, (1913] 2 Ch. 394: KearneY UIQI11Zeu v. Ki ng, 2 B. & Ald. 301,. 1 06 Reprint 377 ; Sprowle v. Legge, 1 B. & C. 16. 8 ECL 8, 1 07 Reprint 7; Arnott v. Redfern, 3 Bing. 353. 11 ECL 177, 130 Repri nt 549, 2 C. & P. 88. ll! ECL 466; Scott v. Pi lkington. 2 B. & S. 1 1 , 1 1 0 ECL 1 1, 121 Reprint 978• Robi nson v. Bland, 2 Burr. 1 077, 9 7 Reprint 7 1 7; Peninsular, etc., Steam Nav. Co. v. Shand. 3 Moore P. C. N. S. 272, 16 Reprint 1 0 3. Can.-Black v. Reg., 29 Can. s. C. 693. Ont.-In re Harte, 2 2 Ont. 5 1 0.
[a] Applications of rule.--Where the lex loci contractus deals with the substantive liability of a party to a contract, to be performed where made, the enforcement of which is sought in another jurisdiction, a limitation such liability imposed by the law of the place of the contract will be enforced by the forum where the remedy is sought, unless contrary to public policy. Hlnkly v. Freick, 86 N.J.L. 281, 90 A 1108, LRA1916B 1041.
↑ Liverpool, etc., Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 1 29 U. S. 3 97, 9 SCt 469. 3 2 L . ed. 788 ; Croissant v . Empire State Real ty Co.. 29 App. ( D. C.) 5 3 8j Eagle v. New York L. Ins. Co .. 411 Ind. A. 2 84. 91 NE 8 1 4 ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Parsley, 67 Tex. Civ. A. 8, 1 2 1 SW 226.
[a] Reason for the rule.--"When a merchant of France, Holland, or England, enters into a contract in his own country, he must be presumed to be conusant of the laws at the place where he is, and to expect that his contract is to be judged of and carried into effect according to those laws; and the merchant with whom he deals, if a foreigner, must be supposed to submit himself to the same laws, unless he has taken care to stipulate for a performance in some other country, or has, in some other way, excepted his particular contract from the laws of the country where he is." Blanchard v. Russell, 13 folass. 1, 4, 7 AmD 106.
[b] The expression "place of contract," in the rule that the validity of a contract is governed by the law at the place ot contract has generally been employed to mean the place where the contract is entered into. Mayer v. Roche, 77 N. J. L. 681, 76 A l!36, 2 6 LRANS 763. 18.
↑ Clarey v. Union Cent. L. Ins. Co., 143 Ky. 640, 136 SW 1014, 1015, 33 LRANS 881 [quot Cyc].
↑ U.S.-Hall v. Cordell, 1 4 2 U. S. 1 1 6, 12 SCt 1 54, 36 L. ed. 9 56 Pritchard v. Norton, 1 0 6 U. S. 1 2 4, SCt 1 0 2, 27 L. ed. 1 0 4 ; Scudder v. Union Nat. Bank, 91 U. S. 406, 23 I,. ed. 2 4 6 ; Brabston v. Gibson, 9 How. 263. 13 L. ed. 1 3 1 ; Bell v. Bruen, How. 169, 1 1 L. ed. 8 9 ; Andrews v. Pond, 1 3 Pet. 65. 1 0 L. ed. 61; Cox v. U. S., 6 Pet. 172, 8 L. ed. 359 ; Title Guaranty, etc .. Co. v. Wltmlre, 196 Fed. 41, 1 1 6 CCA 4 3: Easton v. Wosv. tenholm. 137 Fed. 5 2 4 . 70 CCA 1 0 8 Martin v . Roberts. 3 6 Fed. 2 1 7 : Hart v. Barney. etc .. Mfg. Co., 7 Fed. 643; Ex p. Hcldelback, 11 F. Cas. No. 6,3 22, 2 Lowell 528 ; Howensteln v. Barnes, 12 F. Cas. No. 6,786, 6 Dill. 482.! Payson v. W ithers. 19 F. Cas. No. 10.864, 5 B ias. 269 ; Pope v. Nickerson. 19 F. Cas. No. 1 1.274. Story 465 ; York v. Wlstar, 3 0 F. Cas. No. 1 8.141.
Ala.-New York L. Ins. Co. v. Scheuer, 73 S 409.
Ark.-- Midland Valley R. Co. v. Moran 1!lo lt - 􁦲cl? Mfg. Co., 80 Ark. 399. 97 SW 679, 10 AnnCas 372; Hough v. Maupin, 73 Ark. 618: 84 SW 717.
Colo.-Cockburn v. Kinsley, 25 Colo. A. 89, 136 P 1112.
Conn.-Illustrated Postal Card, etc., Co. v. Holt, 85 Conn. 140! 81 A 1061; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. H ne, 49 Conn. 236; Lewis v. McCabe, 49 Conn. 141, H AmR 217.i Medbury v, someHopkins, 3 Conn. 47􀒛; Smith v. Mead, 3 Conn. 253, 8 AmD 183.
D. C.-Fisk Rubber Co. v. Muller, 42 App. 49; Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Pifer, 31 App. 434, H AnnCas 734; Allemannla F. Ins. Co. v. !<""!reman's Ins. Co., 28 App. 330, 14 LRANS 1049 [aff 209 U. S. 326, 28 SCt 1144, 62 L. ed. 816, 14 AnnCas 948).
Ga.-Clamplon v. Wilson, 84 Ga. 184 · Dunn v. Welsh, 62 Ga. 241; Stricker v. Tinkham, 36 Ga. 176, 89 AmD 289; Herschfeld v. Dexel, 12 Ga.. 6.82.
Ill.-- Benedlct v. Dakin, 243 Ill. 384, 90 NE 712; Mason v. Dousay, 86 Ill. 4U, 35 AmD 368; Strawbridge v. Robinson, 10 Ill. 470, 50 AmD 420; Sherman v. Gassett, 9 Ill. 621.
Ind.-Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Teeters, (A.) 74 NE 1014.
Iowa.-- Banco de Sonora v. Bank- ers' Mut. Casualty Co., 124 Iowa 676, 100 NW 632, 104 AmSR 367; McDan- lei v. Chicago􀒝 etc., R. Co., 41􀆰; 24 Iowa Boyd v . .n;llls, 11 Iowa 97. .1:\.y.-Farmer v. Etheridge, 69 SW 761, 24 KyL 649; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Eubank, 100 Ky. 691. 38 BW 1068, 18 KyL 995, 66 AmSR 361, 36 LRA 711; Young v. Harris, 14 B. Mon. 656, 61 AmD 170; Goddln v. Shipley. 7 B. Mon. 675.
La.-Belrna v. Patton, 17 La.. 589.
Me.-Magulre v. Pingree, 30 Me. 608; White v. Perley, 16 Me. 470.
Md.-Larrabee v. Talbot, 5 Gill 426, 46 AmD 637; De Sobry v. De Lalstre, 2 Harr. & .J. 191, 8 AmD 656.
Mass.--old Dominion Copper Min., etc., Co. v. Blgel"Ow, 203 Mass. 169, 89 NE 193, 40 LR􀒠S 314; Culver v. Benedict, 18 Gray 7; Penobscot, etc., R. Co. v. Bartlett, 12 Gray 244, 71 AmD 753.
Mlch.-Douglass v. Paine, 141 Mich. 486, 104 NW 781.
Mlss.-Wyse v. Dandridge, 36 Miss. 672, 72 AmD 149; Brown v. Freeland, 34 Miss. 181; Dalton v. Murphy, 30 Miss. 59; Wooten v. Mlller, 15 Miss. 380.
Mo.-Peak v. International Har- vester Co., (A.) 186 SW 674; Tre- main v. Dyott, 161 Mo. A. 217, 142 SW 760.
N. H.-Bliss v. Houghton, 16 N. H. 90.
N. Y.-Unlon Nat. Bank v. Chap- man, 169 N. Y. 538, 62 NE 672, 88 AmSR 614. 67 LRA 613 [rev 52 App. Dlv. 57, 64 NYS 10631; Hooley v. InterTalcott, 129 App. Dlv. 233, 113 NYS 820; Lee v. Selleck <.32 Barb. 622, 20 HowPr 276 [aff 33 .N. Y. 616): Pome roy v. Ainsworth, 22 Barb. 118; Mer- chants' Bank v. Spalding. 12 Barb. 302 [aff 9 N. Y. 53]; McClement v. Supreme Court I. 0. F., 88 Misc. 476, 162 NYS 136; Bowen v. Bradley, 9 AbbPr 395; Dickinson v. Edwards, 68 HowPr 24; Connecticut Mut. L. Assur. Co. v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 23 HowPr 180; Bank of C'ommerce v. Rutland, etc., R. Co., 10 HowPr 1; Thompson v. Ketcham, 4 Johns. 286; Smith v. Smith. 2 .Johns. 235. 3 Am D 410. See Richardson v. Draper, 23 Hun 188 [aff 87 N. Y. 337].
Oh.-Montana Coal. etc., Co. v. Cincinnati Coal, etc., Co .. 69 Oh. St. 351, 69 NE 613; Kanaga v. Taylor, 7 Oh. St. 134, 70 AmD 62; Curtis .v. Hutchinson, 1 Oh. Dec. (Reprint) 471, 10 WestLJ 134.
Okl.-Charles City Secutlty Trust, etc., Bank v. Glelchmann, 160 P 908.
Pa.-Chlcago State Bank v. King, 244 Pa.. 29, 90 A 463; Bennett v. Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc., 177 Pa. 233, 35 A 684, 65 AmSR 723, 34 LRA li96; Waverly Nat. Bank v . . Hall, 160 Pa. 466, U A 665, 30 AmSR 823; Me- Kean v. New York Nat. Bldg., etc􀒜 Assoc., 10 Pa. Dlst. 197, 24 Pa.. Co. 468; Robinson v. Kline, 39 Pa. Co. 328; Schmaltz v. York Mfg. Co., 16 YorkLegRec 186. See People's Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Berlin, 201 Pa. 1, 60 A 308, 88 AmSR 764.
Philipine.-- Government v. Frank, 13 Philippine 236.
S. C.-Correll v. Georgia Constr.. etc., R. Co., 37 B. C. 444, 16 SE 166; McCandlish v. Cruger, 2 S. c. L. 377.
Tenn.-- Allen-West Commn. Co. v. Carroll, 104 Tenn. 489, 68 SW 314.
Vt.-Baxter v. Wllley, 9 Vt. 276, 31 AmD 623.
Va.-- General R. Signal Co. v. Com., 11"8 Va. 301, 87 SE 598; War- der v. Arell, 2 Wash. (2 Va.) 282, 1 AmD 488.
W. Va.-- Crumllsh v. Central lmpr. Co., 38 W. Va.. 390, 18 SE 466, 46 AmSR 872, 23 LRA 120j Hefftebower v. Detrick, 27 W. Va. h.
Wis.-Internatlonal Harvester Co. v. McAdam, 142 Wis. 114, 124 NW 11142, 26 LRANS 774, 20 AnnCas 614; Brown v. Oates, 120 Wis. 849. 97 NW 221, 98 NW 205, 1 AnnCas 86· Kennedy v. Knight, 21 Wis. 340. 94 AmD 543; Fisher v. Otis, 3 Chand!. 78.
Eng.-Hamlyn v. Tallsker Distil- lery, 118941 A. C. 202; Chatenay v. Brazil an Submarine Tel. Co., [1891) 1 Q. B. 79, 82; Rouquette v. Over- mann, L. R. 10 Q. B. 625, 4 ERC 287; NQrden SS. Co. v. Dempse;y, 1 C. P. D. 654; Robertson v. Jackson, 2 C. B. 412, 52 ECL 412, 136 Reprint 1006; Cash v. Kennlon. 11 Ves . .Jr. 314, 82 Reprint 1109.
Ont.-Beard v. Steele, 34 U. C. Q. B. 43. See Gildersleeve v. McDougall, 6 Ont. A. 563.
The business sense of all business men has come to this conclusion, that if a contract is made in one country to be carried out between the parties in another country, either in whole or in part, unless there appears something to the contrary, it is to be concluded that the parties must have intended that it should be carried out according to the law of that other country.
Per Lord Esher In Chatenay v. Brulllan Submarine Tel. Co., [1891) 1 Q. B. 79, 82.
↑ Brown v. Gates. 120 Wis. 849, 856, 9.7 NW 221, 98 NW '205, 1 Ann Cas 86.
↑ See Henry v. J. T. Mott Iron Works Co., 10 Kan. A. 579, 62 p 904; Mayer v. Roche. 77 N. J. L. 881, 75 A 236, 26 LRANS 763: Brown v. Gates, 120 Wis. 349, 97 NW 221, 98 NW 205, 1 AnnCas 86; Hamlyn v. Tallsker Dlstllleryi..[18941 A. C. 202; Lloyd v. Gulbert, . R. 1 Q. B. 115, 6 ERC 870.
↑ Mayer v. Roche. 77 N. J. L. 681, 75 A 235. 26 LRANS 763: Hamlyn v. Tallsker Distillery, [1894) A. C. 202.
[a]
The expression "Place of Contract" is in itself ambiguous, since it may mean either the ola.ce where the contract Is entered Into or the place where it is to be performed. Dic. Con. L. 726; Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U. S. 124, 1 SCt 102, 27 L. ed. 104. In the English and American cases, however, it has come to be used generally as signifying the place where the contract is entered into, and since the law of that place does not always control, the cases seem sometimes to be more at variance than they really are. In the English courts it has finally been held that the proper law of the contract is 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. Hamlyn v. Talisker Distillery, [1894) A. C. 202, a careful and learned review of which by Judge Schofield is to be found in 9 Harv. L. R. 371. This rule is substantially that expressed by Lord Mansfield in Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burr. 1077, 97 Reprint 717, and more exactly by Chief Justice Marshall in Wayman v. Southard. 10 Wheat. (U.S.) 1, 48, 6 L. ed. 153, where he said that in every forum a contract is governed by the law with a view to which it was made. The same rule seems to have been in the mind of Lord Denman in Rothschild v. Currie, 1 Q. B. 43, 41 ECL 428, 113 Reprint 1046, and was distinctly stated by Mr. Justice Willes in Lloyd v. Guibert, L. R. 1 Q. B. 115, 58 ERC 170, and by Lord Bowen in Jacobs v. Credit Lyonnale, 12 Q. B. D. 689. The same rule has been adopted by the United States Supreme Court. Coghlan v. South Carolina R. Co., 142 U.S. 101, 12 SCt 160, 35 L. ed. 951; Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U. S. 124, 1 SCt 10!, 27 L. ed. 104. Mr. Justice Gray, in Liverpool, etc., Steam Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, I SCt 469, 3% L. ed. 788, used a form of statement which treated the place where the contract was made as the general rule, but allowed an exception where the parties had a different jurisdiction in view. The later form of statement, which treats the proper law of the contract as that which the parties intended, or may fairly be presumed to have intended, is the more accurate. It harmonises witb the general rule which leads the courts to give effect to the intentions of the parties as far as they are embodied in words, and It does awa;y with the apparent discrepancy between cases like the one last cited, which adopts the law ot the place where the contract Is made. and cases like London Assur. v. Com- panhla de Moagens, 167 U. S. 149, 17 SCt 786, 42 L. ed. 113, where the court said: 'Generally speaking, the law of the place where the contract is to be performed is the law which governs as to its validity and interpretatlon.' The place where the contract is made and the place where the contract is to be performed are both important indicia of the law by which the parties may fairly be presumed to have intended that the contract should be governed, but neither is necessarily conclusive, as appears by the decision in Lloyd v. Gulbert, already cited, where the law which governed was the law of the flag under which the ship sailed, and not the law of the place where the contract was made, nor the law of the place where it was to be performed. The rule of following the intention of the parties has also the merit of flexibility and will cover all cases which can arise. No less general rule can do so.
Mayer v. Roc he. 77 N. :J. L. 68 1, 682, 75 A 235, LRANS 763.
↑ U. S.- Morgan v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 17 F. Cas. No. 9804, 2 Woods 244.
Cal.-- Justis. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 12 Cal. A. 63 9 108 P 328.
Ill.-- Nonotuck Silk Co. v. Adams Express Co., 256 Ill. 76, 9 9 NE 897; Coats v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 239 Ill. 151. 17 YE 92; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Beebe, 1i4 Ill. 13, 60 NE 1019, 66 Am R 253. 43 LRA 210 [aft 69 Ill. A.U3J; Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Furthermann, 149 Ill. 66, 36, NE 624, 41 AmSR 265.
Nebr.-- Sands v. Smith, 1 Nebr. 1 . U AmD 331.
Tex.-- Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Harris, 1 Tex. A. Civ. Cas. § 1267.
[a] Illustration.-- Where an agreement for a loan of money was made in New York and the money advanced there, and a note dated in Nebraska, payable in New York, and a mortgage on lands in Nebraska were given to secure the debt, it was held that the contract was to be governed by the laws of New York. Sands v. Smith, 1 Nebr. 108, 93 AmD 331.
↑ Midland Valley R. Co. v. Moran Bolt, etc., Mfg. Co., 80 Ark. 399, Si W 679, 10 AnnCas 372; Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Broome, 3 Ga. A. 641, CO SE 355; Promeroy v. Ainsworth, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 118.
[a] Illustration-- Where a contract for the sale of material for railroad contruction was to be performed partly in Arkansas and partly in the Indian Territory, the contract was governed by the laws of Arkansas with reference to the part be performed in that state, and with reference to the laws of the Indian Territory as to the balance. Midland Valley R. Co. v. Moran Bolt, etc., Mfg. Co., 80 Ark. 399, 97 SW 679, 10 AnnCas 372.
↑ Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 18 Okl. 157, 122 P 494, AnnCasl915C 420; Hamlyn v. Talesker Distillery, [1894] A. C. 202.
↑ ^16.0 ^16.1 Hall Mfg. Co. v. Western Steel, etc., Works, 227 Fed. 588, 142 CCA 220, LRA1916C 620.
↑ See Remedies.
↑ Naylor v. Baltzell, 17 F. Cas. No. 10,061. Taney 55; Conklin v. Conklin, 54 lnd. 289; Meuer v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 11 S.D. 94, 75 NW 823, 74 AmSR 774.
Contracts as to personalty see Agreements Relating to Personalty.
↑ Kan.-- Midland Sav., etc., Co. v. Solomon, 71 Kan. 185, 188, 79 P 1077 [cit Cyc].
Ky.-U. s. Sav., etc., Co. v. Scott. 98 Ky. 695. 34 SW 235, 17 KyL 1244.
N. D.-U. S. Savings, etc., Co. v. Shain, 8 N. D. 136. 77 NW 1006.
Eng.-Greer v. Poole. 5 Q. B. D. 272; Fey erick v. Hubbard, 71 L. J. K. B. 509; Pena Copper Mines v. Rio Tinto Co., 105 L. T. Rep. N. S. 846; :Johannesburg v. Stewart. [1909] WN. .N . S1.-61H. art v. Withy, 37 N. S. 74.
But see American Freehold Land. etc .. Co. v. Jetrerson. 69 Miss. 770, 12 S 464, 30 Am S R 687 ( ho l ding that the benefit of usury laws of another state could not be obtained by stipulation).
[a] Sufficiency of designation.-- Where a corporation, although incorporated In Virginia, has its actual domicile in the District of Columbia, a contract with such corporation should be construed according to the laws of the District of Columbla, notwithstanding a stlpulation therein that the laws of Viginia shall govern, the by-laws of such corporation requiring all payments to and from the corporation to be payable at Its central office In Washington, D. C., and the general rule being that the contract Is governed by the law of the place of performance. In this case the contract was usurious under the laws of the District of Columbia., and the court held that the mere designation by the parties that the laws of Virginia should govern, when neither the place of the making of the con- tract nor the place of Its performance is in such designated state, is not sufficient to b ri n g the contract under the laws of such state, when the evident purpose is to escape the effect of the statutes of the state in which the parties are when the contract is made. Stoddard v. Thomas, 60 Pa. Super. 177. 180 [cit Cyc].
↑ Missouri State L. Ins. Co. v. Lovelace, 1 Ga. A. 446, 58 SE 93.
↑ McAllister v. Smith, 17 Ill. 328, 334. 65 AmD 651; Midland Sav., etc., Co. v. Solomon, 71 Kan. 185, 79 P 1077; Equitable Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Corley, 72 S.C. 404, 407, 52 SE 48, 110 AmSR 615 [cit Cyc].
↑
U.S.-- The Oranmore, 24 Fed. 922
Ga.-Missourl State L. Ins. Co. v. Lovelace. 1 Ga. A. 446, 68 SE 93 (as to comity).
Ill.-- McAllister v. Smith, 17 Ill. 328, 65 AmD 651.
N. Y.-LeBreton v. Miles, 8 Pa.i&' 261.
Eng.--Greer v. Poole. 6 Q. B. D. 272.
[a] Illustrations--
1. Where a citizen of Chicago made a contract with the agents of a line of British steamers to carry cattle from Baltmore to Liverpool, and it was stipulated that any questions arising should be determined by the law of England, it was held that a federal court sitting in Maryland would recognize this stipulation, and would apply the English rule of law to the solution of the questions in controversy under the contract. The Oranmore, 24 Fed. 922.
2. Where an English underwriter executed in England a policy of insurance which provided that it should be construed and enforced in accordance with French law, it was held that it would be so construed in an English court. Greer v. Poole, 5 Q.B.D. 272.
3. Where natives of a foreign country residing In New York, in anticipation of marriage and of a return to their native country, entered into an agreement for the regulation of their interests under the marriage, expressly referring to the law of their native country, it was held that that law governed the contract, although the parties had continued to reside in New York. LeBreton v. Miles, 8 Paige (N.Y.) 261.
↑ Cal.--Grumwald v. Freese, 4 Cal. Unrep. Cas. 182. 34 P 73 .
D. C.-- Fisk Rubber Co. v. Muller, 4 2 App. 49.
Ga.-- Brown v. Ramsey, 74 Ga. 21 0.
Ind.-- Cable Co. v. McElhoe, 68. Ind. A. 637, 108 NE 790.
Mass.-Codman v. Krell, 162 Mass. 214. 26 NE 90.
Wash..-Crawford v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 86 Wash., 628, 150 P 1 165, 1167, LRA1 9 1 6D 732 [cit Cyc].
Eng.-- Jacobs v. Credit Lyonnais, 12 Q. B. D. 689 , 1 ERC 3 3 8 ; Chartered Mercantile Bank v. Netherlands India Steam Nav. Co., 10 Q. B. D. 521 Chamberlain v. Napier. 16 Ch. D. 6 1 4 Re BarY>ard. 5 6 L. T. Rep. N. S. 9.
↑ Hamilton v. Chicago, etc., R. Co, 145 Iowa 431, 124 NW 363.
↑ Ga.-Dearln g v. Charleston Bank, , & Go.. 4 9 7 .- 4ll A m D 300.
Ind.-Roche v. Washington, 1 9 I nd. 63. 8 1 AmD 376.
N. H.-smith v. Godfrey, 28 N. H. 379, 61 AmD 617.
N.J.-New Brunswick State Bank v. Plainfield First Nat. Bank, 34 N.J. Eq. 460.
N.Y.-Peo. v. McLeod, 1 Hill 377, 25 Wend. 483, 37 AmD 328.
Okl.-Hays v. King, H Okl. 1 8 0, 143 P 1142.
↑ Smith v McAtee. 27 Md. 420, 92 AmD 641. See generally Agreements Contrary to Constitution or Legislation of State
↑ Delop v. Windsor, 26 La. Ann. 185; Cole v. Lucas. 2 La. Ann. 946; Oliver v. Townes, 2 Mart. N. S. (La.) 93; New Brunswick State Bank v. Plainfield First Nat. Bank, 34 N.J. Eq. 450; Lewis v. Woodfolk, 2 Baxt. (Tenn.) 25; International Harvester Co. v. McAdam, 142 Wis. 114, 124 NW 1042, 26 LRANS 774, 20 AnnCas 614.

The law of one state having, ex proprio vigore, no validity in another state, the enforcement of a foreign contract which would not be valid by the law of the forum where its enforcement is judicially attempted, depends upon comity which is extended for that purpose, unless the agreement is contrary to the public policy of the state of the forum, in that it is contrary to good morals, or the state or its citizens would be injured by the enforcement, or it perniciously violates positive written or unwritten prohibitory law; the extent to which comity will be extended being very much a matter of judicial policy to be determined within reasonable limitations by each state for itself.
International Harvester Co. v. McAdam, 142 Wis. 114, 118, 124 NW 1042, 26 LRANS 774, 20 AnnCas 614.

[a] Exercise of of comity voluntary act-The courts recognize the laws of other states pertaining to contracts, and give them effect on the principle of comity, which is the voluntary act of the state by which is offered, and is inadmissible when contrary to its policy or prejudicial to its interests. Corbin v. Houlehan, 100 Me. 246, 61 A 131, 70 LRA 568.
↑ Kulp v. Fleming, 65 Oh. St. 321, 339, 62 NE 334, 87 AmSR 611 ("The right to maintain the action here [to enforce stockholders' liability In Kansas corporation] does not depend upon the exerclse of comity; it rests wholly on the duty of the Ohio courts to enforce a contract voluntarily entered into in another state and made legal by the laws of that state").
↑ Bath Gas Light Co. v. Rowland, 84 App. Div. 563, 568, 82 NYS 841 [aff! 178 N.Y. 631 mem. 27 NE 127 mem] ("In such a case as the one in hand [where a lease was ultra vires (beyond one's legal power or authority) a corporation as against the public policy of a foreign state] the recognition ot the lex loci contractus is not merely based upon comity or ex comitate, but rather ex debito justitiæ [Latin for 'as of right']").

[intent-1] 1.0 ^1.1 "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.

[2] International Harvester Co. v. McAdam, 142 Wis. 114, 118, 124 NW 1042, 26 LRANS 774, 20 AnnCas 614.

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.

[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.

[3] U.S.-O w e n v. G i l e s . 1 5 7 Fed. 8 2 5 , 86 CCA 1 8 9
I o w a.-Ba nco d e S o n o ra v . Ba n kers' M ut. Casual ty Co., 1 2 4 Iowa 6 7 6 . 1 3 􀁋 . AmSR 3 6 7 .
Ky.-- Union Cent. L. Ins. Co., 143 Ky. 640, 136 SW 101 4, 1015, 33 LRANS 881 [quot Cyc]; Davis v. Morton, 5 Bus h 160, 96 AmD 345.
Mass.-HIJI v. Chase, 143 Mass. 1 2 9 , 9 NE 30 ; Stebbins v. Leowolf, 3 Cush. 137.
Mo.-Thompson v. Chicago Trad- ers' I ns. Co. , 169 Mo. 12, 68 SW 8 8 9 .
N. Y.-Dicklnson v. Edwards, 77 N. Y. 673, 33 AmR 671.
[a] Illustrations.--
Where two citizens of France, at Parla1 entered Into a marriage contract ror com- munltf of goods according to the law o Paris, and the husband after- ward deserted his wife. went to New York,· and after remaining there many years, died there, It was held that the rights of the wife In the distribution of the es tate must be go verned by the law ot' France. De- Petcouche v. Savetler, 3 Johns. Ch. <N. Y ) 190, 8 AmD 478 .

Where plaintiffs who lived In New York made a contract In New York with defendants, whereby plalntltrs paid certain bllls for defendants' accom- modatlon, the money being paid In New York, It was held In an action In New York to recover the amount paid on such bllls that the law ot' New York, and not that ot' Mi s s ouri , governed the c ontract notwlthstand- lng defendants resided In Missouri, and the bills were drawn there. Sul'- dam v. Barber, 18 N. Y. 468, 75 AmD 254 [rev 13 N. Y. Super. 34].

AnWhere mo ney was boiTowed In Mas- sachusetts ot' A by an agent ot' B. a resident of New Hampshire, the agen t bei ng employed by B t'or the purpose, and the latter, after recelv- Mclng the money fro m the agent to whom It had been delivered by A. signed and returned/ to A a recelnt sent with the money, It was held that the contract was made In Mas- sachusetts and governed by the laws thereof, and that the fac t that the receipt was si gned In New Hamp- shire was Immaterial. HJII v. Chase, 143 Mass. 129. 9 NE 30.

A statute of the state In which an action Is tried. prov iding that time Is not <it' the essence of a contract unless by Its terms e_xpressly so provid ed, has no application where the con tract In suit was made and was to be per- t'ormed In another state. Owen v. Giles , 157 Fed. 825. 85 CCA 189.

It' by the lex loci the day ot' performance of a contract Is extended to Monday, when the contem plated <lay o t' performance fall!! on Sunday, that rule will be anplled In the place where the contract was to be per- formed. Stebbi ns v. Leowolf, 3 Cush. ( Mass.) 137. Bertonneau

[4] Where two citizens of France, at Parla1 entered Into a marriage contract ror com- munltf of goods according to the law o Paris, and the husband after- ward deserted his wife. went to New York,· and after remaining there many years, died there, It was held that the rights of the wife In the distribution of the es tate must be go verned by the law ot' France. De- Petcouche v. Savetler, 3 Johns. Ch. <N. Y ) 190, 8 AmD 478 .

[5] Where plaintiffs who lived In New York made a contract In New York with defendants, whereby plalntltrs paid certain bllls for defendants' accom- modatlon, the money being paid In New York, It was held In an action In New York to recover the amount paid on such bllls that the law ot' New York, and not that ot' Mi s s ouri , governed the c ontract notwlthstand- lng defendants resided In Missouri, and the bills were drawn there. Sul'- dam v. Barber, 18 N. Y. 468, 75 AmD 254 [rev 13 N. Y. Super. 34].

[6] AnWhere mo ney was boiTowed In Mas- sachusetts ot' A by an agent ot' B. a resident of New Hampshire, the agen t bei ng employed by B t'or the purpose, and the latter, after recelv- Mclng the money fro m the agent to whom It had been delivered by A. signed and returned/ to A a recelnt sent with the money, It was held that the contract was made In Mas- sachusetts and governed by the laws thereof, and that the fac t that the receipt was si gned In New Hamp- shire was Immaterial. HJII v. Chase, 143 Mass. 129. 9 NE 30.

[7] A statute of the state In which an action Is tried. prov iding that time Is not <it' the essence of a contract unless by Its terms e_xpressly so provid ed, has no application where the con tract In suit was made and was to be per- t'ormed In another state. Owen v. Giles , 157 Fed. 825. 85 CCA 189.

[8] It' by the lex loci the day ot' performance of a contract Is extended to Monday, when the contem plated <lay o t' performance fall!! on Sunday, that rule will be anplled In the place where the contract was to be per- formed. Stebbi ns v. Leowolf, 3 Cush. ( Mass.) 137. Bertonneau

[4] Bertonneau v. Southern Pac. Co., 17 Cal . A. 439, 120 P 53.
SeeExpress provision in contract.
See Implied provision in contract.

[5] Crawford v. Seattle, etc., R. Co. , 86 Wash. 6 2 8, 1 5 0 P 1155, LRA 1 916D 732.

[6] U.S.-- Northwestern :Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. McCue, 2l!3 U. S. 2 34, 32 SCt 220, 56 L. ed. 419, 38 LRANS 57; Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 1 7 9 U. S. 262, 21 SCt 106, 46 L. ed. 181: Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U. S. 124, 1 SCt 102. 27 L. ed. 104; Seudder v. Union Nat. Bank, 91 U. 8. 406, 23 L. ell- 246; •Wllcox v. Hunt. 13 Pet. 378. 10 L. ed. 209 ; Cox v. U. S., 6 Pet. 172, 8 L. ed. 369 ; Harrison v. S terry, 6 Cranch 289, 3 L. ed. 10 4 ; I n re Hartdagen, 189 Fed. 546 ; Bel l v. New York Safety Steam Power Co .. 183 Fed. 274; Shaw v. Cl eveland, etc .. R. Co., 173 Fed. 746, 97 CCA 620; Owen v. Gi les, 157 Fed. 825, 86 CCA 189; The l<'rl, 1,54 Fed. 333, 83 CCA 205 [certiorari den 201 U. S. 431, 28 SCt 761, 52 L. ed. 1 1 3 6 ]; Schlnottl v. Whitney, 130 Fed. 780 i. Provident Sav. L. Assur. Soc. v. ttadley, 102 Fed. 856, 43 CCA 25 lal'f 90 Fed. 390. an d certiorari den 179 U. S. 686, 21 SCt 919, 45 L. ed. 3861; Potter v. The Majestic, 60 Fed. 624. 9 CCA 16 1 , 23 LRA 746 [rev on o ther grounds 166 U. S. 375, 17 set 697, 41 L. ed. 1039]; Brown v. American Finance Co .. 31 Fed. 616, 24 Bla􀀮ht'. 384 ; Burrows v. Hannegan, 4 F. Cas. No. 2.20!: 1 McLean 315: Green v. Collins, 10 1. Cas. No. 6,756. 3 Clll't. 494; Nicolls v. Rodgers, 18 F. Cas. No. 10,26 0, 2 Paine 437 ; Pope v. Nicker- son, 19 F. Cas. No. 11,274. 3 Story 465: Van Rel msdyk v. Kane, 28 F. Cas No 16 871 1 Gall 371
Ala.-N e w York L. · Ins : Co. v. Scheuer, 73 S 409 ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Favlsh. 71 S 183: Warrior Coal , etc. , Co. v. Augusta Nat. Bank, 53 S 997; Peet v. Hatcher. 112 Ala. 514, 21 S 7 1 1 , 67 AmSR 46· Swinks v. Dechard, 41 Ala. 258; Evans v. Kittrell, 33 Ala. 449; Walker v. Forbes, 31 Ala. 9; McDougald v. Rutherford, 30 Ala. 253; Jones v. Jones. 18 Ala. 248; Peake v. Yeldell, 17 Ala. 636; Thomas v. Degratr en- reid, 17 Ala . 602; Goodman v. Munks, 8 Port. 8 4 .
Ark.-Lawler v. Lawler, 107 Ark. 70, 153 SW 1113 ; Rock Island Plow Co. v. Masterson, 96 Ark. 446, 132 SW 216: Hough v. Mau pin, 73 Ark. 518, 84 SW 717 ; Howcott v. Kil bourn, 44 Ark. 213; Laird v. Hodges. 26 Ark. 366 ; Lane v. Levllllan, 4 Ark. 7 6, 37 AmD 769.
Cal.- Ailen v. Allen, 95 Cal. 184, 30 P 213. 16 LRA 646; Bertonneau v. Southern Pac. Co., 17 Cal. A. 439, 120 P .63.
Colo.--Cockburn v. Kinsley, 26 Colo. A. 89, 136 P 1112.
Conn.-Whlte v. Holly, 80 Conn. 438,- 68 A 997; Koster v. M lnett. 32 Conn. 246 ; Hale v. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co., 16 Conn. 539, 39 AmD 398; Phlladelnhla. Loan Co. v. Towner, 13 Conn. 24 9; Brackett v. Norton, 4 Conn. 617. 10 AmD 1 7 9.
D. C.--Croissant v. Empire State Realty Co .. 29 App. 538 ; Armstron g v. U. S. Bulldlng, etc., Assoc., 15 App, 1; Ha nsel v. Chapman, 2 App. 3 6 1 .
Fla.-Thompson v. Kyle, 39 F"la. 682, 23 S 12, 63 AmSR 193. Ga.-Flournoy v. J etrerson vllle Firat Nat. Bank, 79 Ga. 810. 2 SE 547; Champion v. Wilson. 64 Ga. 1 8 4 ; Davis v. De Vaughn, 7 Ga. A. 824. 66 SE 9 5 6 ; Missouri S tate L. I ns. Co. v. Lovelace, 1 Ga. A. H6. 58 SE 􀏇3.
Ili.-Walker v. Lovitt. 250 I ll. 6 4 3 , 9 5 NE 631 ; Benedict v. Dakin, 243 I l l. 384, 90 NE 712: Burchard v. Dun - bar, 82 Ill. 4 5 0, 25 AmR 334 ; Evans v. Anderson, 78 Ill. 568 ; Roundtree v. Baker, 62 Ill. 241, 4 AmR 697; Munsford v. Can t(• 60 I l l . 37 0; Lewis v. Headley, 36 II. 433, 87 AmD 227; Austedt v. Sutter, 30 Ill. 164: Me- All ister v. Smi th, 17 Ill. 328. 65 AmD 6 5 1 ; Phinney v. Baldwin, 16 Ill. 108, 1 AmD 62; S tacy v. Baker. 2 Ill. 417; Humphries v. Co111er, 1 Ill. 297; Bradshaw. v. Newman, 1 I l l . 133, 12 AmD 149: Horvitz v. Fred· son , 178 Ill. A. 303· Lumber Co., 146 I \ 1R. eAid. 3v7. 1N; oMrtchCeorny v. G riswold, 1 1 4 I l l . A. 666: Raphael v. Hartman. 87 I l l . A. 634 ; Waters v. Cox. 2 Ill. A. 129.
lnd.-Garrlgue v. Kellar. 1 6 4 Ind. 676, 74 NE 623. 108 AmSR 3 24, 69 LRA 870: Conkl in v. Co nklin, 64 Ind. 289 ; I<'arhnl v. Ram.see, 19 Ind. 400; Krouse v. Kr9use, 48. Ind. A. 3, NE 26! ; Beatty v. lflller, 47 Ind . 4 94 , 94 NE 897.
Iowa.-Boz·n v. Home Ins. Co .. 1! Iowa 299, 94 NW 849; Doyle v. Me Guire, 38 Iowa 410; Franklin v. Two good, 26 Iowa 620, 96 AinD 73; ),f<C. Daniels v. Chicago, etc., R. Co .. Iowa. 412; Bean v. Briggs 4 Iowa 464. '
Kan.-Hetrerlln v. Slnalnderte r, Kan. 401. 85 AmD 693.
Ky.-Elswick v. Ramey, 1 6 7 Ky. 639, 163 SW 761; Arnett v. Pinson. 108 SW 862, 33 KyL 3 6; Ford Buckeye State Ins. Co., & Bush 133, 99 AmD 663: Archer v. National Ina. Co . . 2 Bush ;.:26; Jameson v. Gregory. 4 Mete. 363; You ng v. Harris, 1-1 Mon. 447, 61 AmD 170; Cross v. Petcouche ree, 10 B. Mon. US; Johnson v. U. Bank 2 B Mon 310· Steele v Curle 4 Dana 3Rt· Cocke v. Conlgnlaker. A. K. Marsh. 254 : Grubbs v. HaiTIS. 1 Bibb 667;. Gibson v. Sublet t, 4 KyL 730.
La.-Pecquet v. Pecquet, 17 La. Ann. 204 ; H ollomon v. Hollomon. La. Ann. 607; Snears v. Shronshlre. 11 LL Ann. 669, 68 AmD 208: S. v. U. S. Bank. 8 Rob. 26 2; Shaw v. Oake[• 3 Rob. 361; Brlttgs f'ampbel , 19 La. 624: Buckner Watt, 19 La. 216, 36 AmD 67 1 : Jack son v. Tiernan. 15 La. 485; Gra.vea Roy, 13 La. 464. 33 AmD 668; AnWhere r'lrews v. His Creditors, 11 La. 464; King v. Harman, 6 La. 607. 26 AmD 486 ; Clague v. Their Creditors. 2 La. 114, 20 .AmD 300; Arayo v. Currel. La . 528, 20 AmD 286 ; Malplca v. Mclng Kown, 1 La. 2 48. 2 0 AmD 279; Miles Oden. 8 Mart. N. S. 214. 19 AmD 177: A.Ptor v. Price. 7 Mart. N. 40 􀆱 ;, Shltr v. Loui siana State Ins. Co. 6 Mart. N. S. 6􀁳9; Bell v. James. Mart. N. S. 74: Saul v. His Creditors. 5 Mart. N. S. 669. 16 AmD 212; Thorn v. Morgan, 4 Mart. N. s. 292. 16 AmD 173; Baldwin v. Gray, 4 Mart. N. 192, 16 AmD 169; Chartres Cairnes, 4 Mart. N. S. 1; Ol iver Townes, 2 Mart. N. S. 93; Brown Richardson, 1 Mart. N. S. 202: Evans v. Gray. 12 Mart. 475; Morris v. Eve11. 11 Mart. 730 : Whiston v. Stodder. Mart. 95, 13 AmD 281; Lynch v. Po!! tlethwalte. 7 Mart. 69, 12 AmD 495. Me.-Bond v. Cummlnii'S, 70 Me. 1 􀁴5; Kennedy v. Coch rane, 66 Me. 594; Whidden v. Seelye, 40 Me. 247, 6 3 AmD 6 6 1 .
Md.-Mandru v. Ashby, 108 Md 1193. 71 A 3 1 2; Dakin v. Pomeroy, Gill 1; Tra!!her v. Everhart, a Glll & J. 234 ;.. De Sobry v. De Lalstl"(', Harr. & oJ, 191. 3 AmD 655.
Mass.-Amerl<-an S pirits Mf111:. v. Eldridge, l!09 Mass. 690, 95 !I: 942: American Malting Co. v. Souther Brewing Co., 194 Mass. 89, 80 NE 52fl; Da niel v. Boston, etc .• R. Co 1 8 4 Mal's. 337, 68 NE 337; Mlttenthal v.· Mascainl, 183 Mass. 19; C6 NE 425. 97 mSR 404, 60 LRA 81!: Stebblmt v. Leowolf, 3 Cush. 137: Carnegie v. Morrison, Z Mete. Ill: Pitki n v. Thom pson, l3 Pick. Bulger v. Roche, 11 Pick. 36. Z2 AmD 359: Blanchard v. Russell, 13 Mass. 1, 7 AmD 106. M i ch .-Mi l lar v. Hilton, 189 Mich. 636, 155 NW 574: Douglass v. Pa.Jne. 1 4 1 Mich. 486, 1 0 4 NW 781 ; Tolman Co. v. Reed, 115 Mich. 71. 7Z NW 141310.4 ;6 8D aNWwso n2 4v6. ; PCeotlelrlnsosn ,I r1o1n0 CMoi. Burkam, 10 Mich. 283.
Mlnn.-Northwestem Fuel Co. Boston I ns. Co .. 131 Minn. 19. 164 NW 616.
Mlss.-Woodsen v. Owens. U 207 ; Partee v. Silliman. 44 Miss . 171; Brown v. Freeland, 3 4 Miss. 1 8 1 ; Brown v. Nevitt. 27 Miss. 8 0 1 ; Bank of England v. Tarleton, 23 M iss. 173; Martin v. Martin, 9 Miss. 176.
Mo.-Carey v. Schmeltz, 22\ Mo. 112, 119 SW 946; Thompson v. Chi 􁦰 Traders' Ins. Co., 169 Mo. 12. C8 SW 889; .Tohnstcm v . Gawtry, 8 3 Mo. 339; Sallee v. Chand ler, 26 Mo. 1!4; Houghtaling v. Ball, 19 Mo. 84, 5t AmD 331; Tremain v. Dyott, l6t :llo. A. 217, 14! SW 760; Kavanaugh "·SUpreme Council R. L., 158 Mo. A. U4, 1 38 SW 3 59; McKinstry v. Chlcqo, etc .• R. Co., 1 5 3 Mo. A. 5 4 6 , 134 8W 10 61: Robert v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 148 Mo. A. 96, 127 SW 925 ; Hubbard , •. Mobile. etc., R. Co .• !12 Mo. A. 459, 87 SW 52; Phamlx Mut. L. Ina. Co. v. Simons, 52 Mo. A. 357; Hartmann v. Louisville, etc., R. Co .. It Ho. A. 88; Kerwin v. Doran, 29 Xo. A. 397; Roach v. St. Louis Type Foundry, 21 Mo. A. 118; nan- cllor "· G 9 Mo. A. 1 0 2 ; State 'f. A. %63. State Ins. Co., 61 lZ. Stevens, 6S N. H. v. Costello, 48 N. Bliss v. BrainGodfrey. : Thayer Bl iss v. Hays v. King, H Okl. 1 8 0, 143 11 4 2 ; Wa�rner v. M i nnie Harvester Co., 25 Okl. 5 6 8 , 1 0 6 P 9 69 ; Westeru Union Tel. Co. v. Pratt, 1 8 Okl. 274. 8 9 P 2 37. 1 Or.-.Tamleson v. Potts, 56 Or. 2 1 0 5 P 93, 26 LRANS 24.
Pa.-Forepaugh v. Delaware. etc., R. Co., 1 2 8 Pa. 217, 18 A 603, 15 Am SR 672. 5 LRA 5 0 8 A · Tenant v. Ten- ant, 1 1 0 Pa. 478 , 1 5 3 2 ; GreenwnM '"· Kaster, 86 Pa. 4 6 ; Benners Clemens • . 58 Pa. 24; Speed v. Mny. 17 Pa. 91, 5 5 AmD 6 4 0; Watson Brewster, 1 Pa. 881; Dougherty Snyder, 16 Serg. & R. 84, 1 6 AmD 5 2 0 ; Mann v. Salsberg, 17 Pa. Super. 2RO; Robinson v. Kline. 21 Pft. Dlst. 8 3 9 ; Brewster v. Lyndes, 2 Miles 1 8 Robinson v. Kline, 39 Pa. Co. 328; llmWhltehurst's E�St .. 2 Pa. Co. 212, WkJyNC 403 : Roths.,hild v. RocheF- tf'r, etc .. R. Co., 1 Pa. Co. 620; Gil- bert v. Black, 1 LegChron 132 ; Hong v. Dessan, 1 Plttsb. 3 9 0.
R. I.-Bowler v. Emery, 29 R. :1 1 0. 10 A 1. S . C.-Galletley v. Strickland. S. C. 394. 64 SE 676: Pegram v. WI!- IIams, 3 8 S. C . L . 219; Gilliland Phillips, 30 S. C. L. 1 5 2 ; Weatherby v. Covington, 30 S. C. L. 27, 49 AmD 623 ; Ayres v. Audubon, 20 S. C. SOl ; Touro v. Cassin, 10 S. C. J •. 173, 9 AmD 6 8 0 ; Le Prince v. Guillemot, 18 S. C. Eq. 1 87.
S. D.-Sibley First Nat. Bank Doeden, 21 S. D. 400, 1 1 3 NW Meuer v. Chicago, etc .. R. Co .. 11 D. 94, 76 NW 8 2 3, 74 AmSR 774 Union City Commercial Bank .Jackson, 7 S. D. 136, 63 NW 648.
Tenn.-Ingram v. Smith, 1 Head 411; Pearl v. Hansborough. Humphr. 4 2 6 ; McKissick v. McKls- supsick, 6 Humphr. 76 ; Yerger v. Raus. 4 Humphr. 259.
Tex.-Fidellty Mut. Lite Assoc . Harris, 94 Tex. 2 5, 67 SW 635. AmSR 81 3 ; Cantu v. Bennett. 39 Tex. 3 03 ; Shelton v. Marshall. 1 6 Tex. 344; Crosby v. Huston, 1 Tex. 203; Saw- :ver v. El Paso. etc .. R. Co., 49 Tex. Clv. A. 1 08. 1 0 8 SW. 718.
Vt.--Cartwrlght v. New York, etc.. R: Co .. 69 Vt. 676, 9 A 370 ; Harrison v. Edwards. 12 Vt. 6 4 8 , 36 AmD 8 64 generSutrolk Bank v. Kidder, 12 Vt. 464, 36 AmD 364; Bryant v. Edson, 8 Vt. 325. 80 AmD 472.
Va.-Warder v. Arell, Z Wash. Va.) 282, 1 AmD 488.
Wash.--Crawtord v. Seattle, etc.. R. Co., 88 Wash. 628. 1 5 0 P 1 166, LRA1 9 1 6D 7 3 2: PhrenJx Packing Co. v. Humphrey-Ball Co., 58 Wash. 896, 1 0 8 P 962: Carstens Packing Co. Southern Pac. Co .. 68 Wash. 239, 1 P 613. 27 LRANS 975.
W. Va.-Davldson v. Browning. W. Va. 276, 80 SE 383. LRA1 9 1 976 ; Crumllst v. Central Impr. C'o.. 38 W. Va. 890, 18 SE 466, 46 AmSR 872. 23 LRA 1 2 0 ; Stevens v. Brown, 20 W. Va. 450.
Wls-Intematlonal Harvester Co. Wosv. McAda.m. 142 Wis. 1 14, 1 24 KW 1042, 2 6 LRANS 774. 20 AnnCas 814; Fisher v. Otis, 3 Chand!. 78. Wyo.-Studebaker Bros. Oo. v. Mau. 13 Wyo. 3 6 8 , 8 0 P 161, 1 1 0 AmSR 1 0 01.
Eng.--Chatenay v. Braslllan Sub- marine Tel. Co .. (1 8911 1 Q. B. 79; Gibbs v. La Socll!􀚄 Industrlelle, etc., 25 Q. B. D. 39 9 ; .Jacobs v. Credit Lyonnals, 1 2 Q. B. D. 6 89, 1 ERC 3 3 8 ; Lloyd v. Gulbert. L. R. 1 Q. 1 16, 6 B. & S. 1 00, 1 1 8 ECL 100. UZ Reprint 1 1 3 4 . 6 ERC 870 ; In Bonaclna, (1913] 2 Ch. 394: KearneY UIQI11Zeu v. Ki ng, 2 B. & Ald. 301,. 1 06 Reprint 377 ; Sprowle v. Legge, 1 B. & C. 16. 8 ECL 8, 1 07 Reprint 7; Arnott v. Redfern, 3 Bing. 353. 11 ECL 177, 130 Repri nt 549, 2 C. & P. 88. ll! ECL 466; Scott v. Pi lkington. 2 B. & S. 1 1 , 1 1 0 ECL 1 1, 121 Reprint 978• Robi nson v. Bland, 2 Burr. 1 077, 9 7 Reprint 7 1 7; Peninsular, etc., Steam Nav. Co. v. Shand. 3 Moore P. C. N. S. 272, 16 Reprint 1 0 3. Can.-Black v. Reg., 29 Can. s. C. 693. Ont.-In re Harte, 2 2 Ont. 5 1 0.
[a] Applications of rule.--Where the lex loci contractus deals with the substantive liability of a party to a contract, to be performed where made, the enforcement of which is sought in another jurisdiction, a limitation such liability imposed by the law of the place of the contract will be enforced by the forum where the remedy is sought, unless contrary to public policy. Hlnkly v. Freick, 86 N.J.L. 281, 90 A 1108, LRA1916B 1041.

[7] Liverpool, etc., Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 1 29 U. S. 3 97, 9 SCt 469. 3 2 L . ed. 788 ; Croissant v . Empire State Real ty Co.. 29 App. ( D. C.) 5 3 8j Eagle v. New York L. Ins. Co .. 411 Ind. A. 2 84. 91 NE 8 1 4 ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Parsley, 67 Tex. Civ. A. 8, 1 2 1 SW 226.
[a] Reason for the rule.--"When a merchant of France, Holland, or England, enters into a contract in his own country, he must be presumed to be conusant of the laws at the place where he is, and to expect that his contract is to be judged of and carried into effect according to those laws; and the merchant with whom he deals, if a foreigner, must be supposed to submit himself to the same laws, unless he has taken care to stipulate for a performance in some other country, or has, in some other way, excepted his particular contract from the laws of the country where he is." Blanchard v. Russell, 13 folass. 1, 4, 7 AmD 106.
[b] The expression "place of contract," in the rule that the validity of a contract is governed by the law at the place ot contract has generally been employed to mean the place where the contract is entered into. Mayer v. Roche, 77 N. J. L. 681, 76 A l!36, 2 6 LRANS 763. 18.

[8] Clarey v. Union Cent. L. Ins. Co., 143 Ky. 640, 136 SW 1014, 1015, 33 LRANS 881 [quot Cyc].

[9] U.S.-Hall v. Cordell, 1 4 2 U. S. 1 1 6, 12 SCt 1 54, 36 L. ed. 9 56 Pritchard v. Norton, 1 0 6 U. S. 1 2 4, SCt 1 0 2, 27 L. ed. 1 0 4 ; Scudder v. Union Nat. Bank, 91 U. S. 406, 23 I,. ed. 2 4 6 ; Brabston v. Gibson, 9 How. 263. 13 L. ed. 1 3 1 ; Bell v. Bruen, How. 169, 1 1 L. ed. 8 9 ; Andrews v. Pond, 1 3 Pet. 65. 1 0 L. ed. 61; Cox v. U. S., 6 Pet. 172, 8 L. ed. 359 ; Title Guaranty, etc .. Co. v. Wltmlre, 196 Fed. 41, 1 1 6 CCA 4 3: Easton v. Wosv. tenholm. 137 Fed. 5 2 4 . 70 CCA 1 0 8 Martin v . Roberts. 3 6 Fed. 2 1 7 : Hart v. Barney. etc .. Mfg. Co., 7 Fed. 643; Ex p. Hcldelback, 11 F. Cas. No. 6,3 22, 2 Lowell 528 ; Howensteln v. Barnes, 12 F. Cas. No. 6,786, 6 Dill. 482.! Payson v. W ithers. 19 F. Cas. No. 10.864, 5 B ias. 269 ; Pope v. Nickerson. 19 F. Cas. No. 1 1.274. Story 465 ; York v. Wlstar, 3 0 F. Cas. No. 1 8.141.
Ala.-New York L. Ins. Co. v. Scheuer, 73 S 409.
Ark.-- Midland Valley R. Co. v. Moran 1!lo lt - 􁦲cl? Mfg. Co., 80 Ark. 399. 97 SW 679, 10 AnnCas 372; Hough v. Maupin, 73 Ark. 618: 84 SW 717.
Colo.-Cockburn v. Kinsley, 25 Colo. A. 89, 136 P 1112.
Conn.-Illustrated Postal Card, etc., Co. v. Holt, 85 Conn. 140! 81 A 1061; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. H ne, 49 Conn. 236; Lewis v. McCabe, 49 Conn. 141, H AmR 217.i Medbury v, someHopkins, 3 Conn. 47􀒛; Smith v. Mead, 3 Conn. 253, 8 AmD 183.
D. C.-Fisk Rubber Co. v. Muller, 42 App. 49; Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Pifer, 31 App. 434, H AnnCas 734; Allemannla F. Ins. Co. v. !<""!reman's Ins. Co., 28 App. 330, 14 LRANS 1049 [aff 209 U. S. 326, 28 SCt 1144, 62 L. ed. 816, 14 AnnCas 948).
Ga.-Clamplon v. Wilson, 84 Ga. 184 · Dunn v. Welsh, 62 Ga. 241; Stricker v. Tinkham, 36 Ga. 176, 89 AmD 289; Herschfeld v. Dexel, 12 Ga.. 6.82.
Ill.-- Benedlct v. Dakin, 243 Ill. 384, 90 NE 712; Mason v. Dousay, 86 Ill. 4U, 35 AmD 368; Strawbridge v. Robinson, 10 Ill. 470, 50 AmD 420; Sherman v. Gassett, 9 Ill. 621.
Ind.-Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Teeters, (A.) 74 NE 1014.
Iowa.-- Banco de Sonora v. Bank- ers' Mut. Casualty Co., 124 Iowa 676, 100 NW 632, 104 AmSR 367; McDan- lei v. Chicago􀒝 etc., R. Co., 41􀆰; 24 Iowa Boyd v . .n;llls, 11 Iowa 97. .1:\.y.-Farmer v. Etheridge, 69 SW 761, 24 KyL 649; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Eubank, 100 Ky. 691. 38 BW 1068, 18 KyL 995, 66 AmSR 361, 36 LRA 711; Young v. Harris, 14 B. Mon. 656, 61 AmD 170; Goddln v. Shipley. 7 B. Mon. 675.
La.-Belrna v. Patton, 17 La.. 589.
Me.-Magulre v. Pingree, 30 Me. 608; White v. Perley, 16 Me. 470.
Md.-Larrabee v. Talbot, 5 Gill 426, 46 AmD 637; De Sobry v. De Lalstre, 2 Harr. & .J. 191, 8 AmD 656.
Mass.--old Dominion Copper Min., etc., Co. v. Blgel"Ow, 203 Mass. 169, 89 NE 193, 40 LR􀒠S 314; Culver v. Benedict, 18 Gray 7; Penobscot, etc., R. Co. v. Bartlett, 12 Gray 244, 71 AmD 753.
Mlch.-Douglass v. Paine, 141 Mich. 486, 104 NW 781.
Mlss.-Wyse v. Dandridge, 36 Miss. 672, 72 AmD 149; Brown v. Freeland, 34 Miss. 181; Dalton v. Murphy, 30 Miss. 59; Wooten v. Mlller, 15 Miss. 380.
Mo.-Peak v. International Har- vester Co., (A.) 186 SW 674; Tre- main v. Dyott, 161 Mo. A. 217, 142 SW 760.
N. H.-Bliss v. Houghton, 16 N. H. 90.
N. Y.-Unlon Nat. Bank v. Chap- man, 169 N. Y. 538, 62 NE 672, 88 AmSR 614. 67 LRA 613 [rev 52 App. Dlv. 57, 64 NYS 10631; Hooley v. InterTalcott, 129 App. Dlv. 233, 113 NYS 820; Lee v. Selleck <.32 Barb. 622, 20 HowPr 276 [aff 33 .N. Y. 616): Pome roy v. Ainsworth, 22 Barb. 118; Mer- chants' Bank v. Spalding. 12 Barb. 302 [aff 9 N. Y. 53]; McClement v. Supreme Court I. 0. F., 88 Misc. 476, 162 NYS 136; Bowen v. Bradley, 9 AbbPr 395; Dickinson v. Edwards, 68 HowPr 24; Connecticut Mut. L. Assur. Co. v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 23 HowPr 180; Bank of C'ommerce v. Rutland, etc., R. Co., 10 HowPr 1; Thompson v. Ketcham, 4 Johns. 286; Smith v. Smith. 2 .Johns. 235. 3 Am D 410. See Richardson v. Draper, 23 Hun 188 [aff 87 N. Y. 337].
Oh.-Montana Coal. etc., Co. v. Cincinnati Coal, etc., Co .. 69 Oh. St. 351, 69 NE 613; Kanaga v. Taylor, 7 Oh. St. 134, 70 AmD 62; Curtis .v. Hutchinson, 1 Oh. Dec. (Reprint) 471, 10 WestLJ 134.
Okl.-Charles City Secutlty Trust, etc., Bank v. Glelchmann, 160 P 908.
Pa.-Chlcago State Bank v. King, 244 Pa.. 29, 90 A 463; Bennett v. Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc., 177 Pa. 233, 35 A 684, 65 AmSR 723, 34 LRA li96; Waverly Nat. Bank v . . Hall, 160 Pa. 466, U A 665, 30 AmSR 823; Me- Kean v. New York Nat. Bldg., etc􀒜 Assoc., 10 Pa. Dlst. 197, 24 Pa.. Co. 468; Robinson v. Kline, 39 Pa. Co. 328; Schmaltz v. York Mfg. Co., 16 YorkLegRec 186. See People's Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Berlin, 201 Pa. 1, 60 A 308, 88 AmSR 764.
Philipine.-- Government v. Frank, 13 Philippine 236.
S. C.-Correll v. Georgia Constr.. etc., R. Co., 37 B. C. 444, 16 SE 166; McCandlish v. Cruger, 2 S. c. L. 377.
Tenn.-- Allen-West Commn. Co. v. Carroll, 104 Tenn. 489, 68 SW 314.
Vt.-Baxter v. Wllley, 9 Vt. 276, 31 AmD 623.
Va.-- General R. Signal Co. v. Com., 11"8 Va. 301, 87 SE 598; War- der v. Arell, 2 Wash. (2 Va.) 282, 1 AmD 488.
W. Va.-- Crumllsh v. Central lmpr. Co., 38 W. Va.. 390, 18 SE 466, 46 AmSR 872, 23 LRA 120j Hefftebower v. Detrick, 27 W. Va. h.
Wis.-Internatlonal Harvester Co. v. McAdam, 142 Wis. 114, 124 NW 11142, 26 LRANS 774, 20 AnnCas 614; Brown v. Oates, 120 Wis. 849. 97 NW 221, 98 NW 205, 1 AnnCas 86· Kennedy v. Knight, 21 Wis. 340. 94 AmD 543; Fisher v. Otis, 3 Chand!. 78.
Eng.-Hamlyn v. Tallsker Distil- lery, 118941 A. C. 202; Chatenay v. Brazil an Submarine Tel. Co., [1891) 1 Q. B. 79, 82; Rouquette v. Over- mann, L. R. 10 Q. B. 625, 4 ERC 287; NQrden SS. Co. v. Dempse;y, 1 C. P. D. 654; Robertson v. Jackson, 2 C. B. 412, 52 ECL 412, 136 Reprint 1006; Cash v. Kennlon. 11 Ves . .Jr. 314, 82 Reprint 1109.
Ont.-Beard v. Steele, 34 U. C. Q. B. 43. See Gildersleeve v. McDougall, 6 Ont. A. 563.
The business sense of all business men has come to this conclusion, that if a contract is made in one country to be carried out between the parties in another country, either in whole or in part, unless there appears something to the contrary, it is to be concluded that the parties must have intended that it should be carried out according to the law of that other country.
Per Lord Esher In Chatenay v. Brulllan Submarine Tel. Co., [1891) 1 Q. B. 79, 82.

[10] Brown v. Gates. 120 Wis. 849, 856, 9.7 NW 221, 98 NW '205, 1 Ann Cas 86.

[11] See Henry v. J. T. Mott Iron Works Co., 10 Kan. A. 579, 62 p 904; Mayer v. Roche. 77 N. J. L. 881, 75 A 236, 26 LRANS 763: Brown v. Gates, 120 Wis. 349, 97 NW 221, 98 NW 205, 1 AnnCas 86; Hamlyn v. Tallsker Dlstllleryi..[18941 A. C. 202; Lloyd v. Gulbert, . R. 1 Q. B. 115, 6 ERC 870.

[12] Mayer v. Roche. 77 N. J. L. 681, 75 A 235. 26 LRANS 763: Hamlyn v. Tallsker Distillery, [1894) A. C. 202.
[a]
The expression "Place of Contract" is in itself ambiguous, since it may mean either the ola.ce where the contract Is entered Into or the place where it is to be performed. Dic. Con. L. 726; Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U. S. 124, 1 SCt 102, 27 L. ed. 104. In the English and American cases, however, it has come to be used generally as signifying the place where the contract is entered into, and since the law of that place does not always control, the cases seem sometimes to be more at variance than they really are. In the English courts it has finally been held that the proper law of the contract is 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. Hamlyn v. Talisker Distillery, [1894) A. C. 202, a careful and learned review of which by Judge Schofield is to be found in 9 Harv. L. R. 371. This rule is substantially that expressed by Lord Mansfield in Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burr. 1077, 97 Reprint 717, and more exactly by Chief Justice Marshall in Wayman v. Southard. 10 Wheat. (U.S.) 1, 48, 6 L. ed. 153, where he said that in every forum a contract is governed by the law with a view to which it was made. The same rule seems to have been in the mind of Lord Denman in Rothschild v. Currie, 1 Q. B. 43, 41 ECL 428, 113 Reprint 1046, and was distinctly stated by Mr. Justice Willes in Lloyd v. Guibert, L. R. 1 Q. B. 115, 58 ERC 170, and by Lord Bowen in Jacobs v. Credit Lyonnale, 12 Q. B. D. 689. The same rule has been adopted by the United States Supreme Court. Coghlan v. South Carolina R. Co., 142 U.S. 101, 12 SCt 160, 35 L. ed. 951; Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U. S. 124, 1 SCt 10!, 27 L. ed. 104. Mr. Justice Gray, in Liverpool, etc., Steam Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, I SCt 469, 3% L. ed. 788, used a form of statement which treated the place where the contract was made as the general rule, but allowed an exception where the parties had a different jurisdiction in view. The later form of statement, which treats the proper law of the contract as that which the parties intended, or may fairly be presumed to have intended, is the more accurate. It harmonises witb the general rule which leads the courts to give effect to the intentions of the parties as far as they are embodied in words, and It does awa;y with the apparent discrepancy between cases like the one last cited, which adopts the law ot the place where the contract Is made. and cases like London Assur. v. Com- panhla de Moagens, 167 U. S. 149, 17 SCt 786, 42 L. ed. 113, where the court said: 'Generally speaking, the law of the place where the contract is to be performed is the law which governs as to its validity and interpretatlon.' The place where the contract is made and the place where the contract is to be performed are both important indicia of the law by which the parties may fairly be presumed to have intended that the contract should be governed, but neither is necessarily conclusive, as appears by the decision in Lloyd v. Gulbert, already cited, where the law which governed was the law of the flag under which the ship sailed, and not the law of the place where the contract was made, nor the law of the place where it was to be performed. The rule of following the intention of the parties has also the merit of flexibility and will cover all cases which can arise. No less general rule can do so.
Mayer v. Roc he. 77 N. :J. L. 68 1, 682, 75 A 235, LRANS 763.

[13] U. S.- Morgan v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 17 F. Cas. No. 9804, 2 Woods 244.
Cal.-- Justis. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 12 Cal. A. 63 9 108 P 328.
Ill.-- Nonotuck Silk Co. v. Adams Express Co., 256 Ill. 76, 9 9 NE 897; Coats v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 239 Ill. 151. 17 YE 92; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Beebe, 1i4 Ill. 13, 60 NE 1019, 66 Am R 253. 43 LRA 210 [aft 69 Ill. A.U3J; Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Furthermann, 149 Ill. 66, 36, NE 624, 41 AmSR 265.
Nebr.-- Sands v. Smith, 1 Nebr. 1 . U AmD 331.
Tex.-- Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Harris, 1 Tex. A. Civ. Cas. § 1267.
[a] Illustration.-- Where an agreement for a loan of money was made in New York and the money advanced there, and a note dated in Nebraska, payable in New York, and a mortgage on lands in Nebraska were given to secure the debt, it was held that the contract was to be governed by the laws of New York. Sands v. Smith, 1 Nebr. 108, 93 AmD 331.

[14] Midland Valley R. Co. v. Moran Bolt, etc., Mfg. Co., 80 Ark. 399, Si W 679, 10 AnnCas 372; Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Broome, 3 Ga. A. 641, CO SE 355; Promeroy v. Ainsworth, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 118.
[a] Illustration-- Where a contract for the sale of material for railroad contruction was to be performed partly in Arkansas and partly in the Indian Territory, the contract was governed by the laws of Arkansas with reference to the part be performed in that state, and with reference to the laws of the Indian Territory as to the balance. Midland Valley R. Co. v. Moran Bolt, etc., Mfg. Co., 80 Ark. 399, 97 SW 679, 10 AnnCas 372.

[15] Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 18 Okl. 157, 122 P 494, AnnCasl915C 420; Hamlyn v. Talesker Distillery, [1894] A. C. 202.

[Hall_Mfg._Co.-16] 16.0 ^16.1 Hall Mfg. Co. v. Western Steel, etc., Works, 227 Fed. 588, 142 CCA 220, LRA1916C 620.

[17] See Remedies.

[18] Naylor v. Baltzell, 17 F. Cas. No. 10,061. Taney 55; Conklin v. Conklin, 54 lnd. 289; Meuer v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 11 S.D. 94, 75 NW 823, 74 AmSR 774.
Contracts as to personalty see Agreements Relating to Personalty.

[19] Kan.-- Midland Sav., etc., Co. v. Solomon, 71 Kan. 185, 188, 79 P 1077 [cit Cyc].
Ky.-U. s. Sav., etc., Co. v. Scott. 98 Ky. 695. 34 SW 235, 17 KyL 1244.
N. D.-U. S. Savings, etc., Co. v. Shain, 8 N. D. 136. 77 NW 1006.
Eng.-Greer v. Poole. 5 Q. B. D. 272; Fey erick v. Hubbard, 71 L. J. K. B. 509; Pena Copper Mines v. Rio Tinto Co., 105 L. T. Rep. N. S. 846; :Johannesburg v. Stewart. [1909] WN. .N . S1.-61H. art v. Withy, 37 N. S. 74.
But see American Freehold Land. etc .. Co. v. Jetrerson. 69 Miss. 770, 12 S 464, 30 Am S R 687 ( ho l ding that the benefit of usury laws of another state could not be obtained by stipulation).
[a] Sufficiency of designation.-- Where a corporation, although incorporated In Virginia, has its actual domicile in the District of Columbia, a contract with such corporation should be construed according to the laws of the District of Columbla, notwithstanding a stlpulation therein that the laws of Viginia shall govern, the by-laws of such corporation requiring all payments to and from the corporation to be payable at Its central office In Washington, D. C., and the general rule being that the contract Is governed by the law of the place of performance. In this case the contract was usurious under the laws of the District of Columbia., and the court held that the mere designation by the parties that the laws of Virginia should govern, when neither the place of the making of the con- tract nor the place of Its performance is in such designated state, is not sufficient to b ri n g the contract under the laws of such state, when the evident purpose is to escape the effect of the statutes of the state in which the parties are when the contract is made. Stoddard v. Thomas, 60 Pa. Super. 177. 180 [cit Cyc].

[20] Missouri State L. Ins. Co. v. Lovelace, 1 Ga. A. 446, 58 SE 93.

[21] McAllister v. Smith, 17 Ill. 328, 334. 65 AmD 651; Midland Sav., etc., Co. v. Solomon, 71 Kan. 185, 79 P 1077; Equitable Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Corley, 72 S.C. 404, 407, 52 SE 48, 110 AmSR 615 [cit Cyc].

[22] U.S.-- The Oranmore, 24 Fed. 922
Ga.-Missourl State L. Ins. Co. v. Lovelace. 1 Ga. A. 446, 68 SE 93 (as to comity).
Ill.-- McAllister v. Smith, 17 Ill. 328, 65 AmD 651.
N. Y.-LeBreton v. Miles, 8 Pa.i&' 261.
Eng.--Greer v. Poole. 6 Q. B. D. 272.
[a] Illustrations--
Where a citizen of Chicago made a contract with the agents of a line of British steamers to carry cattle from Baltmore to Liverpool, and it was stipulated that any questions arising should be determined by the law of England, it was held that a federal court sitting in Maryland would recognize this stipulation, and would apply the English rule of law to the solution of the questions in controversy under the contract. The Oranmore, 24 Fed. 922.

Where an English underwriter executed in England a policy of insurance which provided that it should be construed and enforced in accordance with French law, it was held that it would be so construed in an English court. Greer v. Poole, 5 Q.B.D. 272.

Where natives of a foreign country residing In New York, in anticipation of marriage and of a return to their native country, entered into an agreement for the regulation of their interests under the marriage, expressly referring to the law of their native country, it was held that that law governed the contract, although the parties had continued to reside in New York. LeBreton v. Miles, 8 Paige (N.Y.) 261.

[28] Where a citizen of Chicago made a contract with the agents of a line of British steamers to carry cattle from Baltmore to Liverpool, and it was stipulated that any questions arising should be determined by the law of England, it was held that a federal court sitting in Maryland would recognize this stipulation, and would apply the English rule of law to the solution of the questions in controversy under the contract. The Oranmore, 24 Fed. 922.

[29] Where an English underwriter executed in England a policy of insurance which provided that it should be construed and enforced in accordance with French law, it was held that it would be so construed in an English court. Greer v. Poole, 5 Q.B.D. 272.

[30] Where natives of a foreign country residing In New York, in anticipation of marriage and of a return to their native country, entered into an agreement for the regulation of their interests under the marriage, expressly referring to the law of their native country, it was held that that law governed the contract, although the parties had continued to reside in New York. LeBreton v. Miles, 8 Paige (N.Y.) 261.

[23] Cal.--Grumwald v. Freese, 4 Cal. Unrep. Cas. 182. 34 P 73 .
D. C.-- Fisk Rubber Co. v. Muller, 4 2 App. 49.
Ga.-- Brown v. Ramsey, 74 Ga. 21 0.
Ind.-- Cable Co. v. McElhoe, 68. Ind. A. 637, 108 NE 790.
Mass.-Codman v. Krell, 162 Mass. 214. 26 NE 90.
Wash..-Crawford v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 86 Wash., 628, 150 P 1 165, 1167, LRA1 9 1 6D 732 [cit Cyc].
Eng.-- Jacobs v. Credit Lyonnais, 12 Q. B. D. 689 , 1 ERC 3 3 8 ; Chartered Mercantile Bank v. Netherlands India Steam Nav. Co., 10 Q. B. D. 521 Chamberlain v. Napier. 16 Ch. D. 6 1 4 Re BarY>ard. 5 6 L. T. Rep. N. S. 9.

[24] Hamilton v. Chicago, etc., R. Co, 145 Iowa 431, 124 NW 363.

[25] Ga.-Dearln g v. Charleston Bank, , & Go.. 4 9 7 .- 4ll A m D 300.
Ind.-Roche v. Washington, 1 9 I nd. 63. 8 1 AmD 376.
N. H.-smith v. Godfrey, 28 N. H. 379, 61 AmD 617.
N.J.-New Brunswick State Bank v. Plainfield First Nat. Bank, 34 N.J. Eq. 460.
N.Y.-Peo. v. McLeod, 1 Hill 377, 25 Wend. 483, 37 AmD 328.
Okl.-Hays v. King, H Okl. 1 8 0, 143 P 1142.

[26] Smith v McAtee. 27 Md. 420, 92 AmD 641. See generally Agreements Contrary to Constitution or Legislation of State

[27] Delop v. Windsor, 26 La. Ann. 185; Cole v. Lucas. 2 La. Ann. 946; Oliver v. Townes, 2 Mart. N. S. (La.) 93; New Brunswick State Bank v. Plainfield First Nat. Bank, 34 N.J. Eq. 450; Lewis v. Woodfolk, 2 Baxt. (Tenn.) 25; International Harvester Co. v. McAdam, 142 Wis. 114, 124 NW 1042, 26 LRANS 774, 20 AnnCas 614.

The law of one state having, ex proprio vigore, no validity in another state, the enforcement of a foreign contract which would not be valid by the law of the forum where its enforcement is judicially attempted, depends upon comity which is extended for that purpose, unless the agreement is contrary to the public policy of the state of the forum, in that it is contrary to good morals, or the state or its citizens would be injured by the enforcement, or it perniciously violates positive written or unwritten prohibitory law; the extent to which comity will be extended being very much a matter of judicial policy to be determined within reasonable limitations by each state for itself.
International Harvester Co. v. McAdam, 142 Wis. 114, 118, 124 NW 1042, 26 LRANS 774, 20 AnnCas 614.

[a] Exercise of of comity voluntary act-The courts recognize the laws of other states pertaining to contracts, and give them effect on the principle of comity, which is the voluntary act of the state by which is offered, and is inadmissible when contrary to its policy or prejudicial to its interests. Corbin v. Houlehan, 100 Me. 246, 61 A 131, 70 LRA 568.

[28] Kulp v. Fleming, 65 Oh. St. 321, 339, 62 NE 334, 87 AmSR 611 ("The right to maintain the action here [to enforce stockholders' liability In Kansas corporation] does not depend upon the exerclse of comity; it rests wholly on the duty of the Ohio courts to enforce a contract voluntarily entered into in another state and made legal by the laws of that state").

[29] Bath Gas Light Co. v. Rowland, 84 App. Div. 563, 568, 82 NYS 841 [aff! 178 N.Y. 631 mem. 27 NE 127 mem] ("In such a case as the one in hand [where a lease was ultra vires (beyond one's legal power or authority) a corporation as against the public policy of a foreign state] the recognition ot the lex loci contractus is not merely based upon comity or ex comitate, but rather ex debito justitiæ [Latin for 'as of right']").

[38] Where two citizens of France, at Parla1 entered Into a marriage contract ror com- munltf of goods according to the law o Paris, and the husband after- ward deserted his wife. went to New York,· and after remaining there many years, died there, It was held that the rights of the wife In the distribution of the es tate must be go verned by the law ot' France. De- Petcouche v. Savetler, 3 Johns. Ch. <N. Y ) 190, 8 AmD 478 .

[39] Where plaintiffs who lived In New York made a contract In New York with defendants, whereby plalntltrs paid certain bllls for defendants' accom- modatlon, the money being paid In New York, It was held In an action In New York to recover the amount paid on such bllls that the law ot' New York, and not that ot' Mi s s ouri , governed the c ontract notwlthstand- lng defendants resided In Missouri, and the bills were drawn there. Sul'- dam v. Barber, 18 N. Y. 468, 75 AmD 254 [rev 13 N. Y. Super. 34].

[40] AnWhere mo ney was boiTowed In Mas- sachusetts ot' A by an agent ot' B. a resident of New Hampshire, the agen t bei ng employed by B t'or the purpose, and the latter, after recelv- Mclng the money fro m the agent to whom It had been delivered by A. signed and returned/ to A a recelnt sent with the money, It was held that the contract was made In Mas- sachusetts and governed by the laws thereof, and that the fac t that the receipt was si gned In New Hamp- shire was Immaterial. HJII v. Chase, 143 Mass. 129. 9 NE 30.

[41] A statute of the state In which an action Is tried. prov iding that time Is not <it' the essence of a contract unless by Its terms e_xpressly so provid ed, has no application where the con tract In suit was made and was to be per- t'ormed In another state. Owen v. Giles , 157 Fed. 825. 85 CCA 189.

[42] It' by the lex loci the day ot' performance of a contract Is extended to Monday, when the contem plated <lay o t' performance fall!! on Sunday, that rule will be anplled In the place where the contract was to be per- formed. Stebbi ns v. Leowolf, 3 Cush. ( Mass.) 137. Bertonneau

[43] Where a citizen of Chicago made a contract with the agents of a line of British steamers to carry cattle from Baltmore to Liverpool, and it was stipulated that any questions arising should be determined by the law of England, it was held that a federal court sitting in Maryland would recognize this stipulation, and would apply the English rule of law to the solution of the questions in controversy under the contract. The Oranmore, 24 Fed. 922.

[44] Where an English underwriter executed in England a policy of insurance which provided that it should be construed and enforced in accordance with French law, it was held that it would be so construed in an English court. Greer v. Poole, 5 Q.B.D. 272.

[45] Where natives of a foreign country residing In New York, in anticipation of marriage and of a return to their native country, entered into an agreement for the regulation of their interests under the marriage, expressly referring to the law of their native country, it was held that that law governed the contract, although the parties had continued to reside in New York. LeBreton v. Miles, 8 Paige (N.Y.) 261.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

Anonymous

Search

Contracts/Governing law

General Rules

Place of contract

Place of performance

Neither place of contract nor place of performance controlling

Performance in several states

Interstate commerce

Place of enforcement

Domicile of parties

Express provision in contract

Implied provision in contract

Comity basis of all rules

Fact of Agreement

Capacity of Parties

Form and Execution

Revenue stamps

Legality

General Rules

Agreements Contrary to Good Morals

Agreements Injurious to the State or Its Citizens

Agreements Contrary to Constitution or Legislation of State

Agreements Contrary to Public Policy

Agreements Relating to Realty

Agreements Relating to Personalty

Carriage of Goods

Defenses

Presumptions

Remedies

General Rules

Particular Matters Affecting Remedy

Statutes of Limitations

Exemption Laws

Discharge in Bankruptcy or Insolvency

Protection from Civil Arrest

Whether Instrument Is a Specialty

Whether Remedy Is at Law or in Equity

Parties

Conflict of Laws as to Time

In General

Agreement Illegal When Made but Afterward Legalized

Agreement Legal When Made but Afterward Prohibited

References

Navigation

Wiki tools

Page tools

Categories