Contracts/Governing law

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.

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

The question whether in fact an agreement has been entered into is to be determined by the law of the place where the parties were at the time the alleged agreement was entered into, and not by the law of the place where it is attempted to enforce the agreement.[30] Such a question does not relate to the remedy; nor is it a question of procedure or evidence relating to the remedy.[31]

Capacity of Parties

The capacity of the parties to make a contract is as a general rule to be determined by the law of the place where the contrnct is entered into.[32] This rule yields, however, to the rule requiring contracts relating to realty to be governed by the law of the place where the realty is situated,[33] and to the general rules relating to comity in the enforcement of foreign contracts.[34] Questions as to a conflict of laws arising from particular incapacities of the parties to a contract is not within the scope of this article.

Form and Execution

The lex loci contractus also governs as to the form of the contract,[35] and as to its execution and acknowledgment.[36]

Revenue stamps

The better doctrine seems to be that, where an unstamped instrument is declared to be void by the lex loci contractus, it will be void everywhere,[37] unless the foreign statute simply renders such instrument, when unstamped, inadmissible in evidence, when the statute will have no extraterritorial effect.[38] In some jurisdictions, however, the rule is laid down that domestic courts will not take notice of the revenue laws of foreign countries, and therefore that a contract will be enforced in such forum, although invalid for want of proper stamps in the country wnere it was entered into.[39]

Legality

General Rules

The validity of the contract, that is, the question whether the contract is a legal or an illegal one, is judged by the law on the subject in the state or eountry in which the contract is entered into, the general rule being that a contract good where made is good everywhere, and that a contract invalid where made is invalid everywhere.[40] Exceptions to this rule are recognized where the parties clearly appear to have contracted with reference to the law of another jurisdiction,[41] this being particularly true as to matters relating to performance,[42] or where the contract is to be performed in another jurisdiction.[43] There are, however, decisions to the contrary, that is, to the effect that, no matter where the contract is to be performed, its legality must be determined by the law of the place of making;[44] and it has been held that, where a contract is declared void by the law of the state or country where it is made, it cannot be enforced as a valid contract in any other, although by its terms it was to have been performed there.[45] A contract made in contravention of the statutory regulations of a state and unenforceable in its courts is not ipso facto void elsewhere; but if extraterritorial effect is given to the state interdicts, it is on principles of comity.[46] Conversely, a contract valid where made, while valid everywhere, may not be enforceable everywhere,[47] cases of this charaeter not being, strictly speaking, exceptions to the general rule as to validity.[48]

Agreements Contrary to Good Morals

The courts of a country or state are not bound to, and will not, enforce contracts which offend public morals, no matter where they are made.[49]

Agreements Injurious to the State or Its Citizens

Where the state or its citizens would be injured its courts will refuse to enforce the agreement.[50] This rule, it would seem, must be invoked by the state or a citizen thereof.[51]

Agreements Contrary to Constitution or Legislation of State

Where the contract vio­lates the positive legislation of the state, that is, where it is contrary to ita constitution or statutes, it will not be enforced.[52] The cases under this head are usually connected with those under the next exception, for the reason that the public policy of the state is so frequently expressed in its legislation.[53] In some decisions it is said that the contract may be enforced if not immoral,[54] and that the enforcement of the local statute must be invoked by,[55] and necessary for the protection of,[55] a resident of the state.

Agreements Contrary to Public Policy

Where the agreement is one which violates the fixed public policy of the state where the action is brought it will not be enforced.[56] The rule is not affected by the fact that the objectionable parts of the contract have been executed and that those re­maining are innocuous.[57] A contract is not necessarily contrary to the public policy of a state merely because it could not validly have been made there; nor is it one to which comity will not be extended merely because the making of such contracts in the place of the forum is prohibited.[58]

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. ↑ 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.--
    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
  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.
  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--
    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.
  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']").
  30. ↑ Hartmann v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 39 Mo. A. 88; Reilly v. Steinhart, 217 N.Y. 649, 112 NE 468; Government v. Frank, 13 Philippine 236; Crumlish v. Central Impr. Co., 3ll W. Va. 390, 18 SE 456, 45 AmSR 872, 23 LRA 120.
    [a] Illustrations.
    1. Where property was delivered to a carrier in Illinois to transport to St. Louis, Missouri, and where, by the law of Illinois when the receipt was given, the mere acceptance of a receipt did not import assent to its conditions, while by the law of Missouri the mere acceptance of the receipt without objection imported an agreement on all the terms of the receipt. It was held, in an action brought in Missouri, that the question as to whether a contract had been made was to be tested by the law of Illinois, and that therefore on the evidence no agreement in the case at bar could be presumed. Hartmann v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 39 Mo. A. 88. But see Hoadley v. Northern Transp. Co., 116 Mass. 304, 15 AmR 106 (holding the question one of evidence to be determined by the law of the forum).
    2. Where an officer of a Pennsyvania corporation rendered it certain services there and then sued on a quantum meruit in a West Virginia court, and it appeared that by the law of Pennsylvania no contract for payment was implied in the case of services rendered by an officer of a corporation, while in West Virginia such an agreement was implied. It was held by the West Virginia court that the Pennsylvania law must govern. Crumlish v. Central Impr. Co., 38 W. Va. 390, 18 SE 456, 45 AmSR 872, 23 LRA 120.
  31. ↑ Hartmann v . Louisville. etc., R. Co .. 39 Mo. A. 88. 100. "The rule that matters pertaining to the remedy are governed by the forum always assumes that there is a contract upon which a remedy is sought. It cannot be properly appealed to, to determine the question of contract or no contract." Hartmann v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., supra.
  32. ↑ U.S.-- Matthews v. Murchison, 1 7 Fed. 760 : Campbell v. Crampton, 2 Fed. 417, 18 Blatchf. 160.
    La.-- Augusta Ins., etc., Co. v. Morton, 3 La. Ann. 417.
    Md.-- New .Jersey Union Trust Co. v. Schlens. 1 22 Md. 5 8 4 . 89 A 1116.
    Mass.-- Milliken v. Pratt, 125 Mass. 374.
    N.J..-- Thompson v. Taylor, 66 N. J.L. 253, 49 A 544,88 AmSR 485, 54 LRA 585.
    N.Y.-- Unlon Nat. Bank v . Chap. man. 169 N. Y. 638, 62 NE 67%. 88 AmSR 614. 57 LRA 513 [ rev 5! App. Dlv. 57, 64 NYS 10531: Hooley v. Talcott, 129 Ann. Dlv. 233, 113 NYS 1!20. But 11ee Hammersteln v. Syl va. 66 Misc. 550. 124 NYS 535 (where It was said that the court of appeals in the Chapman case, supra, did not intend to overule the principle that the law of the place of performance, if that place is expressed, governs).
    Pa.-- Huey's Appeal. 1 Gran t 61.
    Wis.-- In ternatlonal Harvester Co. v. McAdam. 142 Wis. 1 1 4. 124 NW 1042, 26 LRANS 7 7 4 . 20 AnnCas 6 1 4 . Fla. 68!.
  33. ↑ Thompson v. Kyle, 39 Fla. 582, 23 S 12, 63 AmSR 193.
  34. ↑ International Harvester Co. v. McAdam, 142 Wis. 114, 124 NW l042, 26 LRANS 774, 20 AnnCas 614.
  35. ↑ Matthews v. Murchison, 17 Fed. 760; Smith v. Blatchford, 2 Ind. 184, 62 AmD 604; Wilder's Succ., 22 La. Ann. 219, 2 AmR 721; Tickner v. Roberts, 11 La. 14, 30 AmD 706; Roubicek v. Haddad, 67 N.J.L. 622, 51 A 938.
  36. ↑ Harmon v. Taft. 1 Tyler (Vt.) 6.
  37. ↑ Satterthwaite v. Doughty, H N. C. 314, 59 AmD 554; Fant v. Miller, 17 Gratt. (58 Va.) 47; Clegg v. Levy, 3 Campb. 166; Bristow v. Sequevllle, 5 Exch. 275, 155 Reprint 118; Alves v. Hodgson, 7 T.R. 241, 101 Renrlnt 953.
  38. ↑ Fant v. Miller, 17 Gratt. (58 Va.) 47; Lambert v. Jones, 2 Patt. & H. (Va.) l44.
  39. ↑ Kohn v. The Renaisance, 5 La. Ann. 25, 52 AmD 577; Skinner v. Tinker, 34 Barb. (N.Y.) 333; Andrews v. Herriot, 4 Cow. (N.Y.) 508 note; Ludlow v. Van Rensselaer, 1 Johns. (N.Y.) 94 Armendiez v. Serna, 40 Tex. 291; James v. Catherwood, 3 D.&R. 190, 16 ECL 165; Wynne v. Jackson. Z Russ. 351, 3 EngCh 351, 38 Reprint 368.
  40. ↑ U.S.-- Union NaL Bank, 91 U. s. 406, 23 L. ed. 245; White v . Hart, 1 3' Wall. iU, 20 L. ed. 685 ; Wilcox• v. Hunt, II PeL' 378, 10 L. ed. 209 ; The Ylguel dl Larrlnaga; 2 1 7 Fed. 67 8 ; In re Hartdagen. 1 8 9 Fed. 5 4 !; . Shelton v. Canadian Northern R. \.:O., 1 89 Fed. 1 5 3 ; Bell v. New York Safety Steam Power Co., 1 8 3 Fed. 2 7 4 ; Roblni!On v. Suburban :Prick Co., 1 2 7 ·Fed. i04, 6% CCA 4 8 4 ; Brown v. American Flnance Co .. 31 Fed. 51 6, U Blatchf. U4; Bla.ckwell v. Webster, 29 Fed. 114, %3 Blatchf. 6 3 7 i. The Oranmore, !4 Fed. 922; Shuenreld t v. Junkermann. zo Fed. 3 5 7 ; Green v. Collins, 10 F. Cas. No. 5 , 7 6 6 , 3 Clltf. 494.
    Ala.-New York L. I ns. Co. v. Scheuer, i3 S 4011 ; Scheible v. Bacho. U Ala. 423: Swink v. Dechard, 4 1 Ala. 258; Evans v. Kittrell, 8 3 Ala. 4 4 9 ; Thomas v. Degraffenreid, 1 7 Ala. S O % ; Goodman v. Munks, 8 Port. u.
    Ark.-Howcott v. Kilbourn, 4 4 Ark. m.
    Conn.-Koster v. Merritt, 32 Conn. %46; Brackett v. Norton, 4 Conn. 61 7, 10 AmD 179.
    Del.-McCrery v. Niven, 67 A 462.
    D. C.-- rolssant v. Empire State Realty Co .. 2 9 App. 538. 32G4,L -Davls v. De Vaughn, 7 Ga. A. 56 SE 956.
    Ill.-Burr v. Beckler, 2 6 4 Ill. 2 3 0, 106 NE !06, LRA1 9 1 6 A 1 04 9, AnnCas UISD 113Z [rev 182 Ill. A. 228] ; Schlee v. Gucltenbe!mer, 179 III. 693, U NE 302 [ rev 76 I ll. A. 681 ] ; RoundtreYume vfo. rdBak ve.r , C5a2 n1t1y1., 25401 , I4 l lA. m3R70 ,6 9979; Arr.D 5%5· Anstedt v . Sut ter, 30 Ill. I U ; McAllister v. Smi th, 17 Ill. 328, U A m D 851 ; Phinney v. Baldwin, 1 6 111. 1 01, 6 1 A mD 6 2 ; Fuller v . Lal<e Shore, etc., R. Co., 1 6 5 Ill. A. 2 7 9 : Altland v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 151 Ill. A. !91; Reid v. Northern Lumber Co .. 141 111. A. 371; Forsyth v. Barnes, Ill Ill. A. 467 [rev on other grou nds !ZI Ill. 3%6, 81 NE 1 02 8, 10 AnnCas ;to]; McCoy v. Griswold, lU Ill. A. m.
    Ind.-- Garrlgue v. Keller, 1 6 4 I nd. S76, 74 NE 523, 1 0 8 AmSR 3 2 4 , 69 LRA 870: Cable · Co. v. McElhoe, 5 8 Ind. A. 62 7, 1 0 8 N E 790.
    Iowa.-- Banco de Sonora v. Bankei'B' MuL Casualty Co., 1 2 4 I owa m. 100 :rorw 6 3 2. 1 04 AmSR 367 IllocDawa nUleZl. v. Cblcago, etc., R. Co., 24
    Kan.-Alexander v. Barker, 64 Kan. 191, S1 p 829.
    Ky.--Qrr v. Orr, 1 6 7 Ky. 570, 1 6 3 􀆯 757· Equitable Mut. Fire Ins. 􀷵orp. v. Hurray, 1 3 1 Ky. 7 4 0, 1 1 6 SW Ill;. Arnett v. Pinson, 1 0 8 SW 8 5 2, 1, s 11.yL 26; Ford v. Magnolia Ins. Co., Bush U3, 99 AmD 668 ; Archer v. National Ins. Co., 2 Bush 2 2 6 ; Jameson v. Gregory, 4 Mete. 363 ; Tanner •. Clark, U KyL 9 2 2 : Fally v. Stelnfttld, 10 KyL 9 8 2 ; Labatt v. Smith, I KyL 422.
    La.-Fell v. Darden, 17 La. Ann. %36; Hughes v. Kllngender, H La. Ann. 845: Southern Bank v. Wood. II La. Ann. 6 6 4 , 74 AmD 4 4 6.
    La.-- Emerson Co. v . Proctor, 9 7 lle. UO. 54 A 8 4 9.
    Minn.-Carpenter v. U. S. Express Co., 1 2 0 M i n n. 69, 1 3 9 NW 164 ; Midland Co. v. Broat, 60 Minn. 6 62, 62 NW 972, 17 LRA 3 1 2.
    Miss.-Partee v. Silliman, 44 Miss. 272 ; lvey v. Lalland, 42 M iss. 4 4 4, 9 7 A m D 4 7 6, 2 AmR 6 0 6 ; Brown , v. Nevitt, 27 M iss. 8 0 1 . ·
    Mo.-Thompson v. Chicago Traders' Ins. Co., 1 69 Mo. 1 2, 68 SW 8 8 9 ; Johnston v . Gawtry, 8 3 Mo. 3 3 9 · Tremain v . Dyott, 1 6 1 Mo. A. 2 17, 1 4 2 SW 7 6 0 ; Kerwin v. Doran, 2 9 Mo. A. 897.
    Nebr.-Corn Exch. Nat. Bank v. Janse!!t. 7 0 Nebr. 679, 9 7 NW 8 1 4.
    N. H.-Lovell v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 76 N. H. 668. 78 A 6 2 1 , 34 LRA NS 6 7 􀍎Hall v. Costello, 48 N. H. 1 7 6, 2 Am.n 2 0 7 ; Bliss v. Brainard. 4 1 N. H. 2 5 6 ; Smith v . Godfrey, 2 8 N. H. 3 7 9, 61 AmD 6 1 7 ; Thayer v. Ell iott, 16 N. H. 1 0 2 ; Bliss v. Houghton, 1 6 N.H. 90.
    N. J.-Allegheny Co. v. Allen, 6 9 N. J. L . 2 7 0. 6 5 A 7 2 4 f app d ! s m 19 6 u. s. 458, 25 set 3 1 11 49 L. ed. 5 5 1 1 : Dacosta v. Davis, 2 • N . J. L. 3 1 9 ; New' Brunsw ick State Bank v. Plalnlleld First Nat. l3ank, 3 4 N. J. Eq. 460 ; Atwater v. Walker, 16 N . .J. Eq. 42.
    N.M.-Atchlson, etc . . R. Co. v. Rodgers, 16 N. M. 1 20, 113 P 805.
    N. Y.-Dath Gasligh t Co. v. Rowland, 178 N. Y. 631. 7 1 NE 1 12 7 [ atf 84 App. Dlv. 6 6 3 , 82 NYS 8 4 1 ] ; Dutterlck Pub. Co. v. Mlstrot-Munn Co., 1 6 7 App. Dlv. 632, 1 5 3 NYS 81 [atr 217 N. Y. 678 mem. 1 1 2 NE 1 0 5 6 mem ) ; Thompson v . Erie R. Co., 1 4 7 App. Dlv. 8. 1 3 1 N Y S 6 2 7 [app granted 1 3 2 NYS 1 1 4 8 mem, ancLrev on other grounds l07 N. Y. 1 7 1 , 1 0 0 NE 7 9 1 ] ; Ross v. Wlgg, 34 Hun 1 9 2 ; FM.c, Clement v. Supreme Court I. 0. 88 M isc. 4 7 6 , 1 5 2 NYS 1 3 6 ; Ball v. Davis, 1 NYSt 5 1 7.
    N. C.-Carpenter v. Hanes, 1 6 7 N. C. 6 5 1 , 83 SE 5 7 7 ; W!ll lams v. Carr, 80 N. C. 2 9 4 ; Satterthwaite v. Doughty, 44 N. C. 3 1 4 , 69 AmD 6 6 4 ; Watson v. Orr, 1 4 N . C . 1 6 1 .
    Oh.-Kanaga v. Taylor, 7 Oh. St. 134, 70 AmD 62; Scheferl lng v. Huffman, 4 Oh. S t. 2 4 1 , 6 2 AmD 2 8 1 ; Harrison v. Baldwin, 6 Oh. Clr. Ct. 3 1 0 , 3 Oh. Clr. Dec. 154.
    Okl.-Marx v. Hefner, 4 6 Okl. 463, 149 P 207 ; Klein v. Keller, 4 2 Okl. 5 9 2 , 694, 1 4 1 P 1 1 1 7, AnnCas 1 9 1 6D 1 0 7 0 ( quot Cyc ] ; Wagner v. Minnie Harvester Co., 2 5 Okl. 668, 106 P 9 89.
    Or.-Jamleson v. Potts, 6 6 Or. 2 9 2, 1 0 5 P 9 3 , 26 LRANS 2 4 .
    Pa.-Rumsey v. New York, etc., R. Co., 2 0 3 Pa. 6 79 , 5 3 A 4 9 5 ; Morris Run Coal Co. v. Barclay Coal Co . • 68 Pa. 173, 8 AmR 1 5 9 ; Pi ttsburgh, etc., R. Co. 's App., 8 Pa. Cas. 83, 4 A 3 8 5 ; Stoddard v . Thomaa, 60 Pa. Super. 177 < Brewster v. Lyndes, 2 Mi les 1 8 6.
    Pnll!ppl ne.--Government v. Frank, 13 Phlllpplne 236 ; Germann v. Donaldson, 1 Ph!llpplne 63. .
    R. I.-Chambers v. Church, 14 R. I. 3 9 8, 51 AmR 4 1 0.
    S. D.-Commercial Bank v. Jackson. 7 S. D. 1 3 6 , 63 NW 6 48.
    Tenn.-Pearl v . Hansborough, 9 Humphr. 4 2 6 ; Yerger v. Rains, 4 Humphr. 269.
    Tex.-Chlcago, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson, 100 Tex. 1 8 6 . 97 SW 469, 123 AmSR 7 9 8, 7 LRANS 1 9 1 ; Shelton v. Marshall, 16 Tex. 3 4 4 ; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. M oon, 47 Tex. C!v. A. 2 0 9, 103 SW 1 1 76.
    Wis.-Canale v. Pau ly, etc .. Cheese Co., 156 Wis. 6 4 1 , 146 NW 3 7 2 ; Northwestern Mut. L . Ins. Co. v. Adams, 1 5 5 Wis. 3 35, 1 4 4 NW 1 1 0 8, 62 LRANS 2 7 5 ; International Harvester Co. v. McAdam, 1 4'2 Wla. 1 1 4, 1 4 2 NW 1 0 42, 26 LRANS 7 7 4 , 20 AnnCas 6 1 4 .
    Wyo.-Studebaker Bros. Co. v. Mau, 14 Wyo. 68, 82 P 2 ; Conradt v. Lepper, 13 Wyo. 4 7 3 , 81 P 3 0 7, 82 P 2 .
    B. Eng.-8axby v. Fulton, [ 1 9 0 9 1 2 K. 2 0 8, 1 7 AnnCas 39, 4 BRC 3 8 1 .
    Newfoundl.-Brooks v . A. A. Tete􀍏 graph Co., 4 Newfound!. 1 9 7.
    [a] Applications of rule.-This has been determined among other instances In the case:
    1. 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.
    2. Of contracts made in the Confederate States. Scheible v. Bacho, 4 1 Ala. 423.
    3. 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.
    4. Of agreements in violation of the revenue laws of foreign states. Kohn v . The Renalsance, 6 La. Ann. 25, 68 AmD 577.
    5. Of con tracts made on Sunday. See Sunday [37 Cyc 569].
    6. Of con tracts relati ng to lotteries. See Lotteries [ 2 6 Cyc 1 6 6 4 ] .
    7. Of contracts claimed to . be In violation of the usury laws. See Usury [39 Cyc 8 9 1 -9 1 0 ) .
  41. ↑ U.S.-- Brown v. American Finance Co., 31 Fed. 6 1 6 , 2 4 Blatchf. 384.
    Conn.-Illustrated Postal Card, etc., Co. v. Holt. 8 5 Conn. 1 4 0, 81 A 1 0 6 1 .
    Me.-Carey v . Mackey, 8 2 M e . 6 1 8, 20 A Sf, 1 1 AmSR 600, 9 LRA 1 1 3.
    N . Y.-Berr!en v. Wrigh t, 2 6 Barb. 208.
    N. C.-Cannaday v. Atlan tic Coast Line R. Col, 143 N.C. 439, 66 S E 83 6, 8 3 8 , 1 1 8 AmSR 821, 8 LRANS 939 [cit Cyc].
    Wis.- Brown v. Gates, 1 2 0 Wis. 3 4 9 , 97 NW 2 2 1 , 98 NW 206, 1 Ann Cas 8 5 .
  42. ↑ Zenatello v. Hammerstein, 231 Pa. 66, 79 A 922.
  43. ↑ U. S.-Berry v. Chase, 146 Fed. 625, 77 CCA 161; Wall v. Equitable L. Assur. Soc., 32 F 273 [aff 140 U.S. 226, 11 SCt 822, 35 L. ed. 497]; In re Pennsylvania Ins. Co., 22 Fed. 109.
    Ala.-Southern Express Co. v. Gibbs, 155 Ala. 303, 46 S 465, 130 AmSR 24, 18 LRANS 874.
    Conn.-- Illustrated Postal Card, etc., Co. v. Holt, 85 Conn. 140, 81 A 1061.
    Ind.-Smith v. Muncie Nat. Bank, 29 Ind. 158. And see Butler v. Myer, 17 Ind. 77 (where the question of whether a contract, valid by the law of the place where it is made and where both parties reside, when seught to be enforced in the courts of the state where it was made, will be held void because the law of the state in which the parties have fixed the place of performance would make it void was stated but not decided).
    Mich.-Brand v. Steckert, 1 Mich. N.P. 67.
    N.Y.-Fish v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 211 N.Y. 374, 106 NE 661 [rev 168 App, Div. 92, 143 NYS 366 (aff 79 Misc. 636, 141 NYS 245)].
    Okl.-- Legg v. Midland Sav., etc., Co., 164 P 682.
    Pa.-- Fowler v. Seaboard Airline R. Co., 56 Pa. Super. 345.
    Va.-- R. S. Oglesby Co. v. New York Bank, 114 Va. 663, 77 SE 468; National Mut. Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Ashworth, 9 1 Va. 706. 22 BE 621.
    Wis.-- Brown v. Gates. 1 2 0 Wis. 349, 9 7 NW 221, 9 8 NW 20 6, 1 Ann Cas 85. [a] Indian laws.--The validity of a contract between citizens of the United States, valid by the laws of the United States and of the state where made, is not affected by the customs or laws of the Indians in whose territory it was to be carrled out. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Assoc. v. Bond, 66 Fed. 663, 13 CCA 666.
  44. ↑ Kanaga v. Taylor, 7 Oh, St. 1 3 4 , 70 AmD 62. And see Lovell v. Boston. etc. , R. Co .. 76 N. H. 6 6 8 , 670, 78 A 6 2 1 , 8 4 LRANS 67 (where the court said:

    The legality of an act and the validity of the contract under which it is to be done are as separate and distinct entities as the act of making the contract and that of doing any of the things it contemplates. The making of a contract is an act and, like all other acts, depends for its validity on the law of the place where it is done; so when the contract is not made in the place in which it is to be performed, its validity depends on the law of one jurisdiction, and the legality of the act to be done on that of another. A contract may be invalid when the act to be done is legal, both where the contract is made and where it is to be performed (Davis v. Osgood, 69 N. H. 4 2 7 , 44 A 432 ); for not only is a contract to do an illegal act invalid, but one to do a legal act is also invalid if it is made at a time or in a way the lex loci contractus forbids the parties to make it. The test, therefore, to determine the validity of a contract is to inquire whether the lex loci contractus forbade the parties to make it--not whether it forbade them to do the act or acts it contemplates, nor whether the parties are forbidden to do them by the law of the place where they are to be done

    ).
  45. ↑ Hyde v. Goodnow, 3 N.Y. 266.
  46. ↑ Alleghany Co. v. Allen, 68 N. J. L. 68, 52 A 298.
  47. ↑ Emery v. Burbank. US Mass. 327, 39 NE 1026, 47 AmSR 456, 28 LRA 67.
  48. ↑ International Harvester Co. v. McAdam, 142 Wis. 114, 119, 124 NW 1042, 26 LRANS 774, 20 AnnCas 614 (where the court said:

    While contracts which, though valid in the place thereof, are not enforceable in the country where enforcement is attempted for reasons above suggested, are often spoken of in textbook and other authorities, as exceptions to the rule that the validity of a contract is referable to the place which the parties thereto at the time of making intended should be incorporated into it, they are not exceptions strictly so called. The rule in a technical sense is without exception. In practical effect, the rule of the forum supersedes it leaving the contract without remedy there to enforce it and, in that sense, void

    ).
  49. ↑ U.S.-- Augusta. Bank v . Earle, 13 Pet. 6 1 9 , 10 L. ed. 274 ; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 6 L. ed. 60 6 ; Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wheat. 2 5 8. 6 L. ed. 4 6 8; Brown v. American Finance Co., 31 Fed. 6 1 6 . 24 Blatchf. 3 8 4; Le Roy v. Crowninshield, 16 F. Cas. No. 8.269, 2 Mason. 1 6 1 .
    Ill.-- -Ginsburg v . Adams Express Co., 1 60 Ill. A. 566.
    Ky.-- Levy v. Kentucky Distilling Co .. 9 KyL 1 0 3.
    Mich.-- -Curtls v. Mueller, 1 8 4 M ich. 1 4 8 . 150 NW 847. 8 4 8 [cit Cyc ] .
    N.C.-- -Ca rp enter v. Hanes, 167 N. C . 6 5 1 , 6 6 7. 8 3 SE 677 [cit Cyc l ; Burrus v. Wltcover, 1 6 8 N. C . 3 8 4 , 386, 74 SE 11, 39 LRANS 1006 [quot Cyc] ; Williamson v. Postal TeLCable Co. , 161 N. C. 223, 65 SE 974 ; Cannady v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 1 4 3 N. C. 4 39, 65 SE 836, 838, 1 1 8 AmSR 821. 8 L'"R ANS 939 [quot Cyc.J : Gooch v. Faucett. 1 2 2 N. C. 270, 29 SE 3 62, 3 9 LRA 8 3 6 . ,
    Oh.-- Kulp v. Fleming, 65 O h . St. 3 U. 6 2 NE 3 3 4 , 87 AmSR 6 1 1 .
    Okl.-- Cotfe v . Wilhite, 1 6 6 P 1 69, 1 7 2 [ cit Cyc ] ; Klein v. Keller. 42 Okl. 692, 694, 1 4 1 P 1 1 17, AnnCas 1 9 1 6 D 1 0 7 0 [quot Cyc] .
    Eng.-- Bi nnln gton v. Wallis, 4 B. & Ald. 660, 6 ECL 639, 1 0 6 Reprint 1 0 7 4 i.,.Lloyd v. Johnson, 1 B. & P. UO. 1 2 6 Heprlnt 9 3 9 ; Walker v. Perkln11, 3 Burr. 1 6 68, 97 Reprint 986, 1 W. Bl. 6 1 7, 96 Reprint 299 : Robinson v. Bland. 3 Burr. 1 0 7 7, 9 7 Reprint 717, 1 W . Bl. 234. 9 6 Reprint 1 29 : Bucher v. Lawson, Cas. t. Hardw. 86. 95 Reprint 63.
  50. ↑ U. S.-Augusta. Bank v. Earl e, 13 Pet. 6 1 9 , 10 L. ed. 2 7 4 ; Andrews v. Pond, 13 Pet. 66. 10 L. ed. 6 1 ; J,e Roy v. Crownlnshleld, 16 F. cas. No. 8,269. 2 Mason 15.
    Ark.-Woodward v. Roane, !3 Ark. 6 2 3.
    Fla.-Walters v. Whitlock, 9 Fla. 86, 76 AmD 607.
    111.-Schlee v. Guckenhelmer, 1 7 9 Ill. 693, 6 4 NE 302 ; Rhodes v. Missouri Sav., etc., Co .. 1 7 3 Ill. 621, 5 0 N E 9 9 8 . 4 2 LRA 9 2 : Ginsburg v. Adams Express Co., 1 60 Ill. A. 666.
    Ky.--Gibson v. Sublett, 4 KyL "730.
    La.--Galllano v. Pierre, 1 8 La. Ann. 10, 89 AmD 6 4 3 ; Hughes v. Kllngender, 1 4 La. Ann. 6 2 : Groves v. Nutt. 13 La. Ann. 1 1 7 ; Tatum v. Wright. 7 La. Ann. 3 6 8 ; Mary v. Brown, 6 La. Ann. 2 6 9 ; Cole v. Lucas, 2 La. Ann. 9 4 6 ; Arayo v. Currel, 1 La. 6 2 8 , 2 0 A m D 2 8 6 ; Saul v. H i s Creditors, 6 Mart. N. 8. 669. 16 AmD 2 1 2 : Whiston v. Stodder, 8 Mart. 96, U AmD 2 8 1.
    Md.--Gardner v. Lewis. 7 Gill 377.
    Mass.-Faulkner v. Hyman, 1 4 2 Mass. 6 3 , 6 NE 8 4 6 : We11t Cambrid ge v. Lexington, 1 Pick. 606, 11 AmD 2 3 1 : Tappan v. Poor, 1 6 Mass. 4 1 9 : I n graham v . Geyer, 1 3 Mass. 1 4 6, 7 AmD 1 3 2 ; Prentiss v. Savage, 1 3 Mass. 2 0 ; Greenwood v . Curtis, 6 Mass. 3 6 8 , 4 AmD 1 4 5.
    Mich.--Curtls v. Mueller, 1 8 4 Mich. 1 4 8, 1 60 NW 847, 8 4 8 l c l t Cyc).
    Miss.-Ivey v. Lal1and, 42 Miss. 4 4 4 , 9 7 AmD 4 76, 2 AmR 606.
    Mo.-Thurston v. Rosenfteld, 4 2 Mo. 4 7 4 , 9 7 A m D 3 6 1 .
    Nebr.-Randall v. National Bldg., etc., Union. 43 Nebr. 8 7 6, 62 NW 2 6 2 .
    N. H.-Fisher v. Lord, 63 N . H. 5 1 4 . 􀀱 t􀀰􀀯7 􀁣 o􀄝. m v. Spear, 5 0 N . H. 253,
    N. J.-Bentley v. Whittemore, 1 9 N. J . Eq. 4 6 2, 97 AmD 6 7 1 .
    N. Y.-Marshall v . Sherman . 1 4 8 N. Y. 9, 4 2 NE 4 1 9 , 6 1 AmSR 6 6 4 , 34 LRA 7 6 7 ; Edgerly v. Bush, 81 N. Y. 1 9 9 ; Kelly v. Crapo. 4 6 N. Y. 8 6, 6 AmR 36 [ rev on other grounds 1 6 Wall. ( U. S . ) 6 1 0 . 2 1 L . ed. 73 1 ] ; Bath Gas Light Co. v. Rowland, 84 App. Dlv. 663, 82 NYS 841 [atf 178 N. Y. 631 mem, 71 NE 1127 mem]; Martin v. Hlll, 12 Barb. U1; Merohal}ta' Bank v. Spalding, 12 Barb. 302 [atf 9 N. Y. b).
    N. C.--Carpenter v. Hanes, 167 N. C. 651, 667, 83 SE 677 [cit Cyc]; Burrus v. Wltcover. 168 N. C. U􁦪. 386, 74 BE 11, 39 LRANS 1005 [quot C yc] ; Williamson v. Postal Tei. -Cable Co., 161 N. C. 223, 66 SE 97f · Can· nad ay v. Atlantic Coast Line :R. Co .. 143 N. C. 439, 66 SE 836, 838, 118 AmSR 821t..8 LRANS 9 39 [q_uot CycJ; Gooch v. 􀚀-aucett, 122 N. c. %70. %9 SE 362. 39 LRA 836; Rowland v. Old Dominion Assoc., 116 N. C. 825. 18 SE 966; McLean v. Hardin, 66 N. c. 294, 69 AmD 740.
    Oh.-Kulp v. Fleming, 66 Oh. St. 321, 62 NE 334, 17 AIJ)SR 611.
    Okl.--Cotfe v. Wilhite, 166 p Ut, 172 [cit Cy c) ; Klein v. Keller. 43 Okl. 692, 141 P 1117, AnnCas19UD 10i0 .
    Pa.-Rothschlld v. R oc hestel\ etc .. R. Co., 1 Pa. Co. 620.
    Tex.--Crosby v. Hous ton. 1 Tex. 208.
    Vt.-Terrltt v. Bartle tt, :n Vt. 184.
    En g.-Forbes v. Cochrane, 3 B. .t: C. 448, 9 ECL 199, 107 Repri nt 450. "Comity will not be exercised whe n It prejudices the rights of our own citizens or deni es to them the beneftt ot our own laws." Bath Gas Light Co. v. Rowland, 84 App. Dlv. I>U. &Ga. 82 NYS 841 [atf 178 N. Y. 631 mem, 71 NE 1 1 27 mem ] .
    [a] Illustration.-- In an Illinois case it was admitted that a Missouri building association had loaned money in Illinois at a usurious rate, unless it fell within the statute of Illinois providing that no interest, premiums, or fines accruing to a building association should be deemed usurious, and that the shares of stock in such association should be one hundred dollars each, payable in periodical installments not to exceed two dollars per share. The Missouri association was organized under an act authorizing the issuance of full paid-up interest-bearing stock, of the par value of one thousand dollars per share, to be matured when the dividends and sum invested equaled the face value. It was held by the supreme court of Illinois that, as this was not authorized by the local statute, the rule of comity did not apply, and the contract would be held usurious, since the building association provided for by the latter statute was not with in the spirit and meaning, but was opposed to the idea of such an association as was protected by the local statute. Said the court:

    Under these statutes, and under the general rule of comity existing between States, we will allow to foreign corporations a standing in our courts to enforce the valid contracts they may have made with our citizens, and all valid liens against property situated in this State. But that rule of comity does not require that we should allow foreign corporations to enforce contracts here if such enforcement would be in conftlct with our laws, and, being thus in conftlcti the enforcement whereof would work against our own citizens and give to the citizens of another State an advantage which the resident has not.

    Rhodes v. Missouri Sav., etc., Co., 173 ill. 621, 628, 50 NE 998, 42 LRA 92.
  51. ↑ Bath Gas Light Co. v. Rowland, 84 App. Div. 563 568, 82 NYS 841 [aff 178 N.Y. 631 mem, 71 NE 1127 mem}.
    "Surely a Maine corporation which leaves its own State cannot, in our courts, call for the exclusion of comity toward courts of that State on the ground last indicated [prejudice to the rights of the citizens of New York]." Bath Gas Light Co. v. Rowland, supra.
  52. ↑ U. S.-Augusta Bank v. Earle , U Pet. lil9. 1 0 L. ed. 274 ; Swa nn v. ann. 21 Eed. 299.
    Ala.--Gall iher v. State Mut. L. :.!Ill. Co., 150. Ala. 543, 4 3 S 833 , 124 !.mSR 83 : Donovan v. Pitcher, 53 . \la. 411, 25 AmR 634.
    Ga.-s t ri ck e r v. Tinkham, 35 Ga. t;&, 89 AmD 280 j· Missouri Sta t e L. I ll&. Co. v. Love ace, 1 Ga. A. 446, • SE 93.
    Ill.-Nonotuck Silk Co. v. Adams press Co., 256 Jll. 76. 99 NE 8 9 7 ;11' 166 Ill. A. 525]: No notuck Silk Co. v. Adams Express Co., 266 Ill. (I, 91 NE 893 [aft 1 66 Ill. A. 5 19] ; · lee v. Guc.cken heimer, 179 I l l. 593, • NE 302 : Mumford v. Canty, 60 Ill. ; • U AmD 625; Nehring v. N ehrJIII(. 164 Ill. A. 527: Ginsburg v. . \dams Express . Co .. 1 6 0· I ll. A. 566; ·101ug v. Thomu, 1 20 Ill. A. 2 36.
    Kan.-Mackey v. Pettijohn, 49 P .i; .FeJneman v. Sachs, 33 Kan. 621, • I? 2!1. liZ ArnR 547.
    La.--8aul v. His Credi tors, 5 Mart. '<. S. 5119. 16 AmD 212. ll􀁣􀁤o rb! n v. Houlehan, 100 Me. "· 61. A 131, 7 0 LRA 568 . ¥ua.- Faulkner v. Hyman, 14 2 .l(aaa., 5J. 6 NE 8 46; Parsons v. Trask, . Gtay ·4.73. 66 AmD 602.
    Mich.--Curt ls v. Mueller, 184 Mich. l . ; uo 􁦟 847. 848 £<:it Cyc] : Sw ing -􀷱 C&meron. 145 M i c h. 175. 108 NW 'lU .. .t LRANS 417. 9 Ann Cas 832. X3&.-Ivey v. Lalland. 42 Miss. ttj AmD 475, 2 AmR 606 ; Ma- . T. Hooe, 17 Miss. 247. 48 AmD 1 lDDd. v. Breazelle, 3 Miss. 837 , �· 10'7. .'IO.rA twater v. A. G. Edward s 􁦡e Co. , 147 Mo. A . 436, 449, .Jil '"' . aza [cJt Cyc
    Nebr.-Randa.ll v. M!nneapolls Nat. iuC catc., Un.lon, 43 Nebr. 876, 62 • 􀀘,-Fisher v. Ford, 63 N. H. 􁦢􁦣 4" 1:!7 ; Hill v. Spear, 5Q N. H. I . R 205 . . '.-.-}>ark H'e lgb ts, etc.. Brid ge rooks. etc., Corp., ( Sup.) 94 Z Thompso n v. Taylor, 65 N . J. 1o: '1*7., . 41 A 567 [rev on other 􁦞 ,If, N. J. L. 253, 49 A 644, · 􁦤R. 485, 54 LRA 585]. . • .-carpenter v. H nes, 167 N. • L &57. 83 SE 577 [cit Cyc]; rd Fa shion Co. v. G rant , 165 4U. 1 SE 606; Burru s v . Wltr. 15 • •. C. 384. 385, 74 SE 11, LP.ANS 1005 fquot Cye] : W 111tamY. P􁦥ta! Tei.-Cable Co. , 161 N. C. 15 !<E H: Cannaday v. Atlantic Ltne R. Co., 143 N. C. 439. 55 16, US, 118 AmSR 821, 8 LRANS ! Cillot Cyc ]: Gooch v. Faucett, M: 2.70. 29 SE 362, 39 LRA JWwla nd v. Old Dol)llnlon Bldg .. 115 N. C. 8 25 , 18 SE 965. va�A lll iD v. Fleming, 66 Oh. St. 3 21, 62 NE 334, 87 A m S R 611. Okl.--cotre v. Wilhite, 156 P 169, 1 72 (cit Cyc] ; Kle in v. Kel ler, 42 Okl . 593, 694, 141 P 1 11 7, AnnCas1916D 1070 [ q uot Cyc].
    Pa.-Pittsburg, e tc . , R. Co.'s App., 8 Pa. Cas. 83, 4 A 3 85.
    Tex.-St. Louts, etc., R. Co. v. Moon, 4 7 Tex. Civ. A. 209, 103 SW 11.7 6.
    Wash.--carstens Packing Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 58 Wash. 239, 108
    Wis.--International Harvester Co. v. McAdam, 142 Wis. 114, 124 NW 10 42, 26 LRANS 774, 20 AnnCas 614.
    [a] Sale of prejudicial commodities.--The legislature of the state has power to say that the principle of comity between states sball not be e xtended to a contract the result of which Is to gi ve one of the parties t hereto th e means of violating the l aws o f the state and Its establi shed policy In relation to the sale there in of commodities believed to be prej u- dicial t o the interest of Its citizens. C orbi n v. Houlehan, 100 Me. 246, 61 A 131. 70 LRA 5 6 8.
    [b] Agreement to maka will.--By statute of Massachusetts an agreement to make a. will "is not binding" unless I n writing. A woman of Massachusetts, bein g in Maine, o rally pr omised p la !ntit'f that If she would leav e Maine and take care of her during her life she would leav e her all her property a t her death. Plain- t i lt ac cepted the proposal, went with her to Massachusetts, performed her part of the agreement, and at her death sued her executor on the pro m- !se. It was shown tha.t the o ral con - tract was good in Maine, but the court of Massachusetts refused to enforce it. "The statute," says Ho l m es , J., "evidently embodies a. .fundamental policy. The grou nd, of Internatloncourse, Is the prevention of fraud and pe rj ury, which are deemed likely to be prall tl s ed without this safe- Monguard .... If the po licy of Massa· chu se tts makes void an oral contract of this sort made wi thin the State, the same po licy forbids that Massa· ch use tts testators should be sued Burhere upon such contracts without written eviden ce, wherever they are made." Emery v. Burbank. 163 Mass. 326 , 328. 39 NE 1026, 4 7 AmS R 466. 28 LRA 57.
  53. ↑ 7See Thompson v. Taylor, 6 5 N. J. L. 107, 46 A 567 [re v on other grou nds 66 N. J. L. 253. 49 A 5 44, 88 AmSR 485. 54 LRA 685], and cases cited supra.
  54. ↑ Milliken v. Pratt. 125 Mass. 374, 2 8 AmSR 241; Mcintyre v. Parks, 3 Mete. (Mass. ) 2 0 7; Greenwood v. Curtis, 6 Mass. 3 5 8 . 14 AmD 145.

    Even a contract expressl y pro- hiblted by the statutes of the state In which the su it is brough t, If n ot in Itsel f Immoral , Is not necessarily nor usually deemed so inva lid that the comity of the state. as adm lnts- teted by Its courts, w111 refuse to entertain an action on s uch a con- tract made by o ne of its o wn ctrt- zens abroad In a state tfle laws of which permi t it.

    Milliken v. Pratt, supra.
  55. ↑ 55.0 55.1 Lane v. J. E. Roach' s Banda Mexicana Co., 78 N. J. Eq. 439, 79 A 366.
  56. ↑ U. S.-Augusta Bank v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519. 10 L. ed. 274; Ogden Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213. 6 L. ed. 606 ; Grosman v. Union Trus i 􀀭ft 228 Fed. 6 10, 143 CCA 132; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Kempton, 138 Fed. 992. 71 CCA 246 ; Park er v. Moorf!, 115 Fed. 799, 53 CCA 869 [certiorari den 187 U. 8. 644, 2 3 SCt ll44, 47 L. ed. 347].
    Ala.-Westem Union Tel. Co. v. Hill, 163 Ala. 18, 50 S 248, 23 LRANS 648. 19 AnnCaa 1058.
    Ark. -Arden Lumber Co. v. Hen- derson Iron Wol:k.s, etc., Co., 83 Ark. 240, 1 0 3 SW 185. 69
    Cal.--Wood v. Wood, 187 Cal. 1 4 8•
    Ga.-Atlanta. etc., R. Co. v . Broome, 3 Ga. A. 64 1, 60 SE 355.
    Ill.-Mumford v. Canty, 50 Ill. 370, 99 AmD 630; Phin ney v. Baldwin. 16 Ill. 108, 61 AmD 62: Ginsburg v. Adams Express Co., 160 Ill. A. 566.
    Iowa.-Hamllton v. Chi cago, etc., R. Co., 145 Iowa 431, 124 NW 3 6 3 ; Davis v. Bronson, 6 I owa 410.
    Me.--corb!n v. Houlehan, 100 Me. 246, 61 A 131, 70 LRA 668.
    Md.-Baltlmore, etc., R. Co. v. Glenn, 28 Md. 287, 9 2 AmD 688; Trasher v. Everhart. 3 Gill 8t J . 2 3 4 . M!ch.--curtts v. Mueller, 184 Mich. lU, 160 NW 847, 848 felt Cy cJ ; Seastatute 􀝙na v. Temple Co􁦦 105 Mich. 400, 63 NW 408, 65 AmSR 457, 28 LRA 430.
    Mo.-Atwater v. A. G. Edwards Brokerage Co., 147 Mo. A. 436, 126 SW 823.
    Nebr.-Het,ml v. Fl d􀝚U ty Bldg., etc., Assoc., 81 Nebr. '144, 86 NW 475, 87 AmSR 619. N. H.-Bl iss v. Brainard 41 N. lL 266; Smith v. Godfrey, 28 N. H. 879, 61 AmD 61?' .
    N. J.-Fru!er v. Fredericka, U N. J. L. 162.
    N. Y.-Meacham v, Jamestown, etc., R. Co .. 21 1 N. Y. 846, 106 NE 653, AnnCas1916C 851 [rev 161 App. Dlv. 941, 136 NYS 1141 ]; Internatloncourse, al Text-Book Co. v. Connel ly, 206 N, Y. 188, 99 NE '722, 42 LRANS 1 1 1 6 ; San Remo Coppet' Min. Co. v. Monguard 'euse, 132 NYS 670 (rev on other grounds 149 App. D!v. 26, 133 NYS 509 ].
    N.C.--carpenter v. Hanes, 167 N. C. 6&1, 657, 83 SE 577 felt Cyc] : Burhere rus v. Wltcover, 158 N. C. 384, 386, 74 SE 11, 39 LRANS 1006 [quot Cyc] ; Williamson v. Postal Tel.-cable Co .• 161 N. C. 223, 66 SE 974; Cannady v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 143 N. c. 4 3 9 . 55 SE 836. 838, 118 AmSR 821, 8 LRANS 939 lquot Cyc]; Gooch v. Faucett. 122 N. C. 270, 29 S E 362, 39 LRA 836.
    N. D.-Hanson v. Great Northern R. Co., 18 N, D. 324, 121 NW '18, 138 AmSR 768.
    O h.-Kulp v. Fleming, 65 Oh. St. 321, 62 NE '834, 87 AmSR 611: Ka- nagar v Taylor 7 Oh St 134 70 AmD 62:
    Okl.--cotte v. Wilhite, 156 p 169, 172 [cit Cyc] : Marx v. Hefner, 4 6 Okl. 453. 149 P 207; Klein v. Keller, 4 2 Okl. 592, 594, 141 P 1117, AnnCaa 1916D 1070 [quot Cyc ] .
    Or.-H !rschfeld v. McCullagh. 64 Or. 502, 127 P 541, 130 P 1 131.
    Pa.-Sw!ng v. Munson. 191 Pa. 582, 43 A 3 4 2 : Pittsburg, etc.. R. Co.'s App .. 8 Pa. Cu. 83, 4 A 385 ; Morgan v. Camden, etc . . R. Co .. 2 Pa. Co. 97; Rothschild v. Rochester, etc., R. Co., 1 Pa. Co. 620.
    R. I.-Winward v. Lincoln, 23 R. I. 476, 51 A 106. .
    S. C.-Welling v. Eastern Bldlf., etc., Assoc., 66 s. C. 280, 84 SE 409. Tenn.-Loulsvllle. etc .. R. Co. v. SmiKh􀝛123 Tenm 678, 134 SW 866. ed bg'C:J--,;8 :3u1 Southwestern R. Co. v. Mcin tyre, 36 Tex. Clv. A. 3 9 9 , 82 SW 3 4 6.
    Utah.-Palmer v. Pa lmer, 26 Utah 31, 72 P 3, 99 AmSR 820, 61 LRA 6 4 1 . .
    Wash.--Carstens Packing Co. v . Southern Pac. Co .. 58 Wash. 2 3 9 , 1 0 8 P 6 1 3 , 2 7 LRANS 9 7 5.
    Wls.-Porte v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 6 2 Wis. 4 4 6 , 1 5 6 NW 4 6 9 ; International Harvester Co. v. M cAdam. 1 4 2 Wis. 1 1 4 , 1 2 4 NW 1 0 4 2 , 26 LRANS 7 7 4 , 20 AnnCas 6 1 4 ; Barttett v . Col- !Ins, 1 0 9 Wis. 4 7 7 , 85 NW 7 0 3 , 83 A m S R 9 2 8 ; Rose v. Kimberly, etc., Co., 8 9 Wis. 545. 6 2 NW 526, 46 Am SR 855, 27 LRA 5 5 6 .
    Eng.-8ociH􀏁 des HOtels Rl'unls v. Hawker. 2 9 T. L. R. 5 7 8 : Rouslllon v . Rouslllon. H Ch. D. 3 6 1 . Al ta.-Waters v. Campbell , 1 4 Dom LR 4 4 8. 26 WestLR 838.
    [ a ] Reason of the rule.--"It appears to me, however, plain on general principles, that this Court will not enforce a contract against the publ ic policy of this country, wherever It may be made. It seems to me almost absurd to suppose that the Courts of this country should enforce a contract which they consider to be against public policy simply because It happens to have been made somewhere else." . Fry. J., In Rousillon v. Rousillon, 1 4 Ch. D. 3 5 1 . 3 6 9 . ·
    [b] Application of tbe rule.-- This rule has been applied to:
    1. Sep- aratlon aRTeements. Palmer v. Pal - mer, 26 Utah 3 1 , 72 P 3 . 99 AmSR 8 20, 6 1 L R A 6 H ; Hope v. Hope, 8 De G. M. & G. 7 3 1 , 5 7 En,..Ch 6 6 5 , H Repri nt 572.
    2. Contracts of married women. See Husband and Wife ( 2 1 Cyc 1 3 1 1 1.
    3. Agreements In- volvlng champerty. See Champerty a n d Maintenance I 1 0 6.
    4. Contracts in restraint of trade. Union Locomotive. e tc .. Co. v. Erie R. Co., 3 7 N . J . L . 2 3 ( where a contract be - tween a railroad company In New Jersey and certai n Individual!! Jctvl n �t the latter the exclusive righ t of transporting certain kinds of freight over the ra ilroad had been made ln New York. and had been sustained by the courts of that state. but In an action tor the breach of some of It�< prov isions In New Jersey I t was held that the contract was void be- 􀏂ause against the public policy- of New Jersey, and would not be en- forced, although valid where made ) ; Bath Gas Li ght Co. v. Rowland, 8 4 App. D l v. 5 6 3 . 8 2 NYS 8 4 1 [atr 1 7 8 N. Y. 6 3 1 mem. 7 1 NE 1 1 2 7 m e m I; Rouslllon v. Rouslllon. 14 Ch. D. 351 ( where parties had entered Into a n agreemen t I n France In restraint of trade and, al though the agreement was perfectly val id In France, where the common-law doctrine regard i n g !IUch con tracts as agai nst public pol- Icy Is unknown. It was held that the agreement would not be enforced by a n English court ) .
    5. Contracts givin g preferences to credi tors. Stri cker v. Tinkham. 35 Ga. 176, 89 AmD 2 8 0 ; Thurston v. Rosenfield, 42 M o. 474. 97 AmD 351 ; Moore v. ·non- nell, 31 N. J. L. 90; Varnum v. Ca mp, 13 N. J. L. 326, 25 AmD 476; Dear- lng v. McKinnon Dash, etc .. Co .. 1 6 5 N. Y. 7 8 , 8 7 , 6 8 N E 7 7 3 , 8 A m S R 70 8.
    6. Agreements to I nfluence public offlclals. Oscanyan v. Win- chester Repeating Arms Co. , 1 0 3 U . 8. 2 6 1 , 2 6 L. ed. 5 3 9 ( where plalntll'r. an offlcer o f the Turkish government, had made a contract with defendant. a manufacturer o f firearms. under which he was to receive a. commls· s l o n on such as he could Induce that gov.,rnment to pu rchase, and In a suit on the contract It was held by the supreme court of the United States that even were the contract made In Turkey a nd valid there the Turkish governmen t being willing that Its otncers should receive bribes f'or offlclal action. yet contracts of this kind being against the public policy of this country would not be enforced In our court s ) .
    7. Gambling contracts. See Gaming [·20 Cyc 9 2 3 ] .
    8. Agreements com- pounding crime. Wight v. Rinds- kopt 43 Wis. 3 4 4 . 3 6 4 ( where a per- son brought a suit In Wisconsin for legal s.ervlces rendered defen dan t a n d the proof w a s that th e object of the service was th e compounding of a erlme, defendant and others b e i n g at the time under Indictment In the federal courts for violation o f the United States revenue laws. I t wa!l held that the agreement under wh ich the service was rendered was void for lllegallty, such contracts being contrary to public pol icy of t h e state. On rehearing I t was brou�tht to the attention of the cottrt that the federal s tatutes expressly authorize such compromises with t h e govern- ment. with the consent o f the sccre- tary of the treasury and the attorney-general. The supreme court ad- mltted that the statute might be binding on the federal j udges ln ac- t lons ln their courts, but refused to give It any recogn i t ion In the state court, saying: "We could no more en force contracts compounding o r tending to compound crime comi ng from the federal jurisdiction. than contracts of polygamy from the ju- rlsdlctlon of Utah or of Turkey" ) .
    9. Provisions tor attorney' s fees in notes. See Corpus Juris, Bills and Notes § 164.
  57. ↑ Hope v. Hope, 8 De G. M. & G. 7 3 1 , 5 7 En KCh 565, 44 Reprint 5 7 2 ( where a hus6and and wife living ln France made a contract I n that coun- try which provided for two things which by the law of England were Illegal. namely, the collusive con- duct of a divorce suit. and the aban- donment b y t h e husband of t h e c U ll • t􀏃dy of his children. a n d t h e Eng- llsh courts refused to enforce any part o f I t , holding that, If a court of o n e country Is cal led o n to e n - force a contract en tered Into In an- other, It I s not enough that the con- tract should be valid according to the laws of the latter. for It any part of the contract Is Inconsistent with the law and the policy of the former the contract will not be enfor<'ed, even as to another part of It wh ich may not be open to th is objection, and may be the only part remalnlnr to be performed).
  58. ↑ International Harvester Co. v. McAdam, 142 Wis. 114, 1 20, 1U NW 1 0 4 2, 2 6 LRANS 7 7 4 , 20 AnnCas 6 1 4 ("There must be something inherently bad about it, something shocking to one's sense of what is right as measured by moral standards, in the judgment of the courts, something pernicious and injurious to the public welfare").
Retrieved from "https://www.wikilawschool.net/w/index.php?title=Contracts/Governing_law&oldid=39567"