New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-01-22

though invalid there by her laws ought to be held yalh
enere also even as against residents o, be
Thurman agt stoclSwel decided in 1865 This is sus-
tanned by two other decisions of precisely the sarne
cnaIacier, IN Speed agt May Q7 Penn State X, 9l,
was held that assignment Of a chose in action due
ron resident ia Pennsylvania legally made Ia Mary
ilna was valid IN Pennsylyania, although the general
assgnnent which included the claim not recorded
required by the law Of the latter State so in Caske agt
H. mepS oc wallace Jr, l3 Mr. Justice Grier made
ilhn uecsQD thurman agt stOckwell made distinctions
1 gdbo aSo{s ana movable assigns IN Casde agt
pOIeal right IL has no situs follows the person of
the owner" But he did not base his deciIon on that
TO admit that tho law was against his decision to per-
sonal property as between different nations but he did
regarded. as general thing, in the relation of states
foreign TO each other with Difference think the do
trne this subject 10 be well established the other way
See before cited and ioyt agt Thompson u9N.Y.
at 223 Hemnon agt Inc isfRe io CD 70 ,,,
between debts and noyabes The latter being capable Of
having sus not the former, they follow tile doniol
of the owner People agt Commissioners Of Taxes 2d N
224 IL is insisted that great VIII occur
transfer OF mOyabes must be MADE according 10 tna
law Of its situ it is not expected that persons Wiz
know the laws Of foreign country Ibis dItlculty
rather imaginary than real me transfer - always hele
valid for all general purposes, with the exception before
stated There would seem TO be no great injustice in
been ground of their owners obtaining credit there.
should not be transferred to an9he state to pay foreign
debts, leaving local debts unpad uness IL DC dohe Ia 40
cOrdance with the law OF their locality ., .,,
know of no decision anywhere that would sustain this
action The cases before cited of Thurman ag stock
WELL Speed agt May and Casde agt WeDsterare, tinht
sound Jaws chose III action cannot surely be SAID "a
have any actual stus in the place where the Debtor ro
Sides as general principle is payable at the RESIDENCE
OF the CREDITOR If not expressed otherwise, aud tcndef
TO be good must he made 10 the creditor Ihcfe Wou9
therefore, be sound basis for the debtors Statd
to legisate exclusively 10 the legality OF transfer Oh
that debt, made by foreign creditor IN such case az
IN all others where the property transferred docs nov
actually die within the jurisdiction or another Covers
ment sale contract valid where made Is valid every
where. -
The exception that the contract cannot be enforced m
be immoral unjust will, and should be, rarely
ever needed between civilized nations Every cylI.ea
nation should be the sole and exclusive Judge of what
moral and just in her legislation upon matters conceded
TO be within her exclusive jurisdiction This State haA
forbidden the taking Of than at the rate Of per
cent interest by the severest penalties Lotteries though
allowed for literary or religious purposes are now
declared nuisanceso Of Slavery, once sustained but
now prohibited in every State OF the Union Yet note
given for slaves or lottery tickets orusurousDy ouraw
IL made here If valid by the laws OF the country wnore
made and payable, would be sustained here
10 would admit be more harmonious with the general
principle that personal property has no es aud prset
ticaly, perhaps more convenient 70 hOd tDat sale
moyables valid where made, should be valid eFeryWher9
But i'm addition to the objection thereto already stated
suppose the laws Of the States differ as they sometimes
do as to what is personal and what real property
could 1t be pretended that sale here without deco o.
what our law calls personal and the law OF NewJersex
declares TO be real estate actually located there woula
pass the title to the property therei
whatever may be our views as TO what the law ougW
TO be In cases like the at the bar the DECISIONS na
ffo0EhR too With elementary writers, arc too uniio
and too numerous to warrant us IN overrullng tnem
should we do So and hold the defendant responsible VI
ths Case we should he in anag0nism with nearly every
State In the Union, If not Will ALL upon question: toc
which each state has the right to decide Tor ITSELF snQ
generally TO enforce its declsion aud as general lpg
SIr decision the other way would remain eless RUS
without our having the least power to enforeei1
We think the Judgment should be affirmed