History
  • No items yet
midpage
Byrne v. Crowninshield
17 Mass. 55
Mass.
1820
Check Treatment
By the Court.

The case cited by the plaintiff’s counsel from our own reports, is decisive of this action. The principle has often been recognized, that the laws of the country where the contract is *45made, are to govern its construction; those of the country where the remedy is sought, are to prescribe that remedy.

A difference has been attempted to be shown in this case, from that of Pearsall & Al. vs. Dwight, & Al. in that both the parties to this action were inhabitants of New York at the time when the contract was made, and the cause of action accrued. But that fact was assumed in the case referred to. The difference then does not exist (3).

Defendant's plea bad.

[Bulger vs. Roche, 11 Pick. 36.—Le Roy vs. Crowninshield, 2 Mason, 151.— Williams vs. Jones 13 East. 439.—Wilson vs. Appleton, post, 180.—Ed.]

Case Details

Case Name: Byrne v. Crowninshield
Court Name: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date Published: Oct 15, 1820
Citation: 17 Mass. 55
Court Abbreviation: Mass.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.