Слике страница
PDF
ePub

terposition of its tribunals to protect and vindicate and secure the wholesome agency of its own laws within its own domains.' Transitory rights accruing under any municipal laws may be enforced in another jurisdiction, subject to the principles just stated, that they be not repugnant to its policy or prejudicial to its interests; and personal states and relations, originating under and valid by the law of the domicile or place of contract, will be universally recognized as valid, subject to the same condition. A legal title, duly acquired in any one country, is a good title over all the world.3

§ 14. Where either by common law or statute a right of action has become fixed and a legal liability incurred, if transitory, it may be enforced in the courts of any state which can obtain jurisdiction of the defendant, provided it is not against the public policy of the laws of the state where it is sought to be enforced. The statute has no extraterritorial force, but rights under it will always in comity be enforced, if not against the policy of the laws of the forum. In such cases the law of the place where the right was acquired or the liability was incurred will govern as to the right of action, while all that pertains merely to the remedy will be controlled by the law of the state where the action is brought."

1 Story, Conf. L. SS 18, 29, 30; Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. v. Doyle, 60 Miss. 977; Debovoise v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 98 N. Y. 377; Phillips v. Hunter, 2 H. Black. 402; Sill v. Worswick, 1 H. Black. 672; Campbell v. Hall, 1 Cowp. 208; Liverm. Dis. 26-30; Hyde v. Wabash, etc. R. R. Co. 61 Iowa, 441; S. C. 47 Am. R. 820; Lawrence's Wheat. 160, 161; Davis v. Jacquin, 5 Harr. & J. 100.

Nashville, etc. R. R. Co. v. Foster, 10 Lea, 351; State Bank Receiver v. Plainfield Bank, 34 N. J. Eq. 450; Whart. Am. L. ch. V; Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519, 589; Sherwood v. Judd, 3 Bradf. 419; Sanford v. Thompson, 18 Ga. 554.

3 Simpson v. Fogo, 1 H. & M. 195; Crispin v. Doglioni, 3 S. & T. 96; Beard's Ex'r v. Basye, 7 B. Mon. 144.

4 Herrick v. Minneapolis, etc. R. R. Co. 31 Minn. 11; S. C. 47 Am. R. 771; Knight v. West Jersey R. R. Co. 108 Pa. St. 250; S. C. 56 Am. R. 200; Dennick v. R. R. Co. 103 U. S. 11; Leonard v. Columbia St. Nav. Co. 84 N. Y. 48; S. C. 38 Am. R. 491; Central R. R. Co. v. Swint, 73 Ga. 651; Morris v. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. 65 Iowa, 727; S. C. 54 Am. R. 39; Shedd v. Moran, 10 Ill. App. 618; Ramsey v. Glenn, 33 Kan. 271; Boyce v. Wabash R'y Co. 63 Iowa, 70; S. C. 50 Am. R. 730; Keenan v. Stimson, 32 Minn. 377; Bishop v. Globe Co. 135 Mass. 132; Taylor v. Penn. Co. 78 Ky. 348; S. C. 39 Am. R. 244. See Willis v. R. R. Co. 61 Tex. 432; Vawter v. Pac. R'y Co. 84 Mo. 679; S. C. 54 Am. R. 105.

5 Id.; Burlington, etc. R. R. Co. v.

[ocr errors]

§ 15. Extraterritorial operation of laws in case of colonization of a new country.-It was declared by the lords of the privy council in England, over a hundred and fifty years ago, upon appeal from the foreign plantations, that if there be a new uninhabited country found out by English subjects, as the law is the birthright of every subject, so wherever they go they carry the laws with them; therefore, such new found country is governed by the laws of England. English statutes. enacted prior to the settlement of the colonies in America were brought thither with the common law; or rather the common law, and the statutes amendatory of it, by the colonists from England, as a birthright; not to operate of their own vigor in the colonies, as statutes, but as part of the unwritten law. The colonists brought the laws of the mother country as they brought the mother tongue; not all the laws, but such as were adapted to their needs in the new country under the novel conditions and circumstances which there existed.2

§ 16. The existence of this law in the colonies was recognized and sanctioned by the royal charters, subject to modification by colonial usage and legislation. Our colonial ancestors could live under the old laws, or make new ones. When they legislated, their own laws governed them; when they did not, the laws they brought with them were their rules of conduct."

Thompson, 31 Kan. 180; S. C. 47 Am. R. 497; Mooney v. Union Pacific R. R. Co. 60 Iowa, 346. "A contract, so far as concerns its formal making, is to be determined by the law of the place where it is solemnized, unless the lex situs of property disposed of otherwise requires; so far as concerns its interpretation, by the law of the place where its terms are settled, unless the parties had the usages of another place in view; so far as concerns the remedy, by the law of the place of suit; and so far as concerns its performance, by the law of the place of performance." Whart. Conf. L. (2d ed.) § 401.

1 Mem. 2 P. Wms. 75; 1 Black. Com. 107; Blankard v. Galdy, 2 Salk. 411; Dutton v. Howell, Show. P. C. 32;

Adj.-Gen. v. Ranee Surnomoye Dossee, 9 Moore (Ind. App.), 387; Commonwealth v. Leach, 1 Mass. 60; Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 2 id. 534; Boehm v. Engle, 1 Dall. 15; Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 4 Paige, 198. See Chalmers' Colonial Op. 206, 232.

2 State v. Rollins, 8 N. H. 550, 561; Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 2 Mass. 534; Patterson v. Winn, 5 Pet. 233; Clawson v. Primrose, 4 Del. Ch. 643; O'Ferrall v. Simplot, 4 Iowa, 400; Vidal v. Girard's Heirs, 2 How. 128; Webster v. Morris, 66 Wis. 366; Dodge v. Williams, 46 id. 92; Nelson v. McCrary, 60 Ala. 301.

Sackett v. Sackett, 8 Pick. 309; 1 Kent's Com. 473; Commonwealth v. Knowlton, supra.

The English statutes thus imported, though the written law in England, and there in force as the expression of the sovereign will, did not cling to the emigrant and attend him to the colonies against his will to preserve his subjection to the crown; but he brought it as a boon for his protection.' In the colonies these statutes were interwoven with the common law. Their authority was the same as that which gave force and sanction to the common law; the force of each depended on the same consideration - the presence of this spirit in the emigrant's mind and their adaptation to his condition and circumstances in the colonies. In 1774 the congress declared the right of the colonies to the common law and statutes of the mother country.2

$ 17. English statutes passed after the establishment of the colonies. The colonies were subject to the authority of parliament; they were a part of the British domain. It could,

1 The declaration of Dr. Franklin quoted by Mr. Wharton (Wharton's Am. L. § 22, note) truly states the force of English laws brought to this country by the colonists. He said: "The settlers of colonies in America did not carry with them the laws of the land as being bound by them wherever they should settle. They left the realm to avoid the inconveniences and hardships they were under where some of these laws were in force, particularly ecclesiastical laws, those for the payment of tithes, and others. Had it been understood that they were to carry those laws with them, they had better have stayed at home among their friends unexposed to the risks and toils of a new settlement. They carried with them a right to such part of the laws of the land as they should judge advantageous or useful to them: a right to be free from those that they thought hurtful, and a right to make such others as they should think necessary, not infringing the general rights of Englishmen; and such new laws as they were to form as agree

3

able as might be to the laws of England." See speech of Burke on moving resolutions of conciliation, March 22, 1775.

2 Journal of Cong. Oct. 14, 1774.

3 In a late work, entitled "Parliamentary Government in the British Colonies," by Alpheus Todd, p. 128, it is said: "Subject, however, to the constitutional oversight and discretion of the crown, by which all colonial legislation is liable to be controlled or annulled, if exercised unlawfully or to the prejudice of other parts of the empire, complete powers of legislation appertain to all duly constituted colonial governments. Every local legislature, whether created by charter from the crown or by imperial statute, is clothed with supreme authority, within the limits of the colony, to provide for the peace, order and good government of the inhabitants thereof. (See Baron Burke's judgment in Kielley v. Carson, 4 Moore's Privy Council Rep. 85.) This supreme legislative authority is subject, of course, to the paramount supremacy of the imperial parlia

and to some extent it did, legislate directly for their government. But its enactments did not exter1 to the colonies unless the intention to so extend them was manifested in the statutes. Nor did such statutes, in which no such intention was expressed, become part of the unwritten law of the colonies.?

In some instances, statutes of England passed after the emigration, and not in terms made applicable to the colonies, were adopted by the colonial courts; thus by long practice they acquired the authority of law. By statutory and constitutional provision, the common law and English statutes, prior to specified dates, have been very generally adopted, or assumed by the courts to be in force so far as consistent with our condition and system of government, not only by states formed from the colonies, but in the newer states. The legislative and juridical history of the colonies does not confirm the theory that English laws were imposed on the colonies by authority of parliament, or that their adoption is traceabie alone and everywhere to the nationality of the colonists. They unconsciously, by usage and custom, adopted laws adapted to their situation and needs, according to such enlightenment as they had, under the conjoint influence of dissenting religion and national bias. They legislated to the same end, and under the same influence; independently of the crown, despite the restrictions in their constitutions, and the practice or requirement in some cases to legislate in the name of the king and the ostensible recognition of his veto power.

ment over all minor and subordinate
legislatures within the empire. The
functions of control exercisable by
the imperial legislature are practi-
cally restrained, however, by the op-
eration of certain constitutional prin-
ciples..
It may suffice to
observe that the right of local self-
government conceded to all British
colonies wherein representative insti-
tutions have been introduced confers
upon the local legislature, with co-
operation and consent of the crown,
as an integral part of such institution,
ample and unreserved powers to de-

liberate and determine absolutely in regard to all matters of local concern."

1 McKineron v. Bliss, 31 Barb. 180. See Brice v. State, 2 Overt. 254; Egnew v. Cochrane, 2 Head, 329.

2 Matthews v. Ansley, 31 Ala. 20; Carter v. Balfour, 19 Ala. 829; Sackett v. Sackett, 8 Pick. 309; Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 2 Mass. 534. 3 Commonwealth V. Knowlton,

supra.

4 Id.; Morris v. Vanderen, 1 Dall. 64, 67; Respublica v. Mesca, id. 73. 5 Edmund Burke, in his speech in

The original British colonies had been practically self-governing, and the result of the revolution was to confirm their right of self government. The people of the several colonies, in provisional union, won in that struggle the sovereignty of themselves. The republican system which replaced the colonial constitutions abrogated only the prior laws which were inconsistent with the genius and form of the new govern

ment.

§ 18. The first settlements were not all made by English people, nor were all the English settlements made by persons of the same class or from the same motives. Von Holst has truly remarked, that "the thirteen colonies had been founded at very different times and under very different circumstances. Their whole course of development, their political institutions, their religious views and social relations, were so divergent, the one from the other, that it was easy to find more points of difference than of similarity and comparison..

moving resolutions of conciliation March 22, 1775, said: "When I know that the colonies in general owe little or nothing to any care of ours, and that they are not squeezed into this happy form by the constraints of watchful and suspicious government, but that, through a wise and salutary neglect, a generous nature has been suffered to take her own way to perfection-when I reflect upon these effects, when I see how profitable they have been to us, I feel the pride of power sink, and all presumption in the wisdom of human contrivances melt and die away within me,- my vigor relents, I pardon something to the spirit of liberty." Having addressed a series of considerations to show the futility and inexpedience of employing force against the revolting colonies, he said: "Lastly, we have no sort of experience in favor of force as an instrument in the rule of our colonies. Their growth and their utility has been owing to methods altogether different. Our ancient indulgence has been said to be pursued

to a fault. It may be so; but we know, if feeling is evidence, that our fault was more tolerable than our attempt to mend it, and our sin more salutary than our penitence. But there is still behind a third consideration, concerning this object, which serves to determine my opinion on the sort of policy which ought to be pursued in the management of America, even more than the population and its commerce; I mean its temper and character. In this character of Americans, a love of freedom is the predominating feature which marks and distinguishes the whole; and as an ardent is always a jealous affection, your colonies become suspicious, restive, and untractable, whenever they see the least attempt to wrest from them by force, or shuffle from them by chicane, what they think the only advantage worth living for. This fierce spirit of liberty is stronger in the English colonies, probably, than in any other people of the earth, and this from a greatvariety of powerful causes."

« ПретходнаНастави »