Ludlow, Brewerton, & Strong v. Van Rensselaer

1 Johns. 94
New York Supreme Court·Decided February 15, 1806·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Livingston, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The payee of this note, though it was made in France, resided at the time, within this state, where it was to be paid.— As we do not sit here to enforce the revenue laws of other countries, it is perfectly immaterial, in a suit before us, whether or not the note was stamped according to the laws of France. Such a duty is not imposed upon us, nor, if it be admitted that.the law of France, in this instance, has been violated, are we bound to take notice of such violation! If it were otherwise, it might well be said, that the parties never contemplated exacting the payment of this note in that country, and this would form a sufficient excuse here, for not adhering rigidly to a matter, extrinsic and formal as to the contract, though it might be necessary, in order to sustain an action in the courts of France.

Judgment for the plaintiffs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ludlow, Brewerton, & Strong v. Van Rensselaer, 1 Johns. 94 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1806).

1 Johns. 94 (Ludlow, Brewerton, & Strong v. Van Rensselaer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Republic of Colombia v. Diageo North America Inc.
531 F. Supp. 2d 365 (E.D. New York, 2007)
Republic of Honduras v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
341 F.3d 1253 (Eleventh Circuit, 2003)
Beadall v. Moore
199 A.D. 531 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1922)
Cromley v. Dean
177 Ill. App. 67 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1913)
Skinner v. Tinker
34 Barb. 333 (New York Supreme Court, 1861)
Martendale v. Follet
1 N.H. 95 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1817)