37 N.Y.S. 69 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1896
There was a conflict of evidence as to where the skins were injured and as to the cause of such injury. We are of opinion' the
The contention that the provisions of the bill of lading were illegal under the statutes and laws of England should not be upheld. Even if such statutes were applicable to such a contract when made in England, and the laws of England were as claimed, they arc not applicable to this contract, because it was made in France and was to be performed mainly outside of England. It was a good contract under the laws of New York. (Reed v. Express Co., 48 N. Y. 466; Ricketts v. Railroad Co., 59 id. 637.)
We think the contract was one the parties might legally make, and that it was binding upon them.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Van Brunt, P. J., Barrett, Patterson and O’Brien, JJ., concurred.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.