Smith v. Pinolla

2 Johns. 197
New York Supreme Court·Decided February 15, 1807·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In the case of Nash v. Tupper, it was laid down as a general principle’that the lex loci applies only to the interpretation of contracts, and that the remedy on them must bo prosecuted according to the laws of the country in which the action is brought. The decision of the court of C. B. in the case of Melan v. The Duke de Fitzjames was questioned by Lord Ellenborough, [200] in the case of Imlay v. Ellefsen,* who considered the opinion of Mr. Justice Heath as the law, and the contrary doctrine was abandoned by the counsel. We adopt the principle contended for by Heath. If a foreign creditor pursues his debtor here, he is entitled to the more cacious remedy provided by our laws, for the recovery of debts.

Rule refused.

Footnotes

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

Smith v. Pinolla, 2 Johns. 197 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1807).

2 Johns. 197 (Smith v. Pinolla) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sayward v. Dexter, Horton & Co.
72 F. 758 (Ninth Circuit, 1896)
Hochstadter v. Hays
11 Colo. 118 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1887)
Roots v. Mason City S. & M. Co.
27 W. Va. 483 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1886)
Perrine v. Hotchkiss
2 Thomp. & Cook 370 (New York Supreme Court, 1873)
McCulloch v. Judd
20 Ala. 703 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1852)
Didier v. Davison
2 Barb. Ch. 477 (New York Court of Chancery, 1847)
Toland v. Sprague
37 U.S. 300 (Supreme Court, 1838)
SPRING AND OTHERS v. the Executors of Gray
31 U.S. 151 (Supreme Court, 1832)
McLellan v. Crofton
6 Me. 307 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1830)
Franklin v. Executors of Camp
1 N.J.L. 227 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1793)