Opinion ID: 2300328
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: determination of the applicable pennsylvania law

Text: Among the questions involved is whether the Pennsylvania law proved was adequate to sustain the determination made by the trial court. The receiver, for the first time on this appeal, asserted that Pennsylvania law was not pleaded below and argued that for this reason the Uniform Judicial Notice of Foreign Law Act, N.J.S. 2 A :82-27 et seq., was not applicable. We find to the contrary. The Uniform Judicial Notice of Foreign Law Act, N.J.S. 2 A :82-27, provides: Whenever the common or statute law of any state is pleaded in an action in any court of this state, the court shall take judicial notice thereof. In the absence of such pleading, it shall be presumed that the common law of such state is the same as the common law as interpreted by the courts of this state. Insofar as the statute refers to the necessity of pleading the foreign law, we have held that the issue of status of the pertinent law of the foreign jurisdiction may be raised not only in a complaint, but in an answer, at a pretrial conference or, with permission of the court, at the trial itself. Leary v. Gledhill, 8 N.J. 260, 270 (1951). In the present matter there were no formal pleadings; the matters were asserted by motion and no pretrial conference was had. Under these circumstances the issue as to the foreign law was raised by the receiver during the trial, i.e., the hearing and reception of evidence on the motions. This is deemed by us to be a sufficient compliance with the statute, N.J.S. 2 A :82-27, supra, under the Leary case, supra. Ordinary procedure would call for amendment of the pleadings and pretrial order in the event an issue not raised in the pleadings and pretrial order is tried by consent or without objection, R.R. 4:15-2. However, in the present case since there was an absence of pleadings and pretrial order R.R. 4:121 applied. R.R. 4:121, supra, provides that the court shall proceed in any lawful manner not inconsistent with the Constitution, these rules or any applicable statutes. In this respect, therefore, the trial court was within its competence in the present matter in reaching its determination without amending the pleadings. The arguments addressed by the receiver to this court further assert that the determination of the Pennsylvania law by the Superior Court, Law Division, lacks support in the evidence introduced by the receiver and that Blumberg is precluded from reference to Pennsylvania decisions and statutes not introduced at the trial level. These arguments anticipate the independent investigation and consideration by this court of pertinent Pennsylvania decisions or statutes, and deny our right to resort thereto in the disposition of this appeal. The Uniform Judicial Notice of Foreign Law Act, sec. 2, N.J.S. 2 A :82-28, provides that The court may inform itself of such laws in such manner as it may deem proper   . Mr. Justice Heher, speaking for the former Supreme Court, construed sec. 2 (now N.J.S. 2 A :82-28), supra, to provide that the judge is not confined to the evidence of foreign law adduced by the parties. Franzen v. Equitable Life Assur. Society, 130 N.J.L. 457, 461 ( Sup. Ct. 1943). The statute further provides The determination of such laws shall be made by the court    and shall be reviewable. N.J.S. 2 A :82-29. The Uniform Judicial Notice of Foreign Law Act, N.J.S. 2 A :82-27 et seq., supra, specifically applies to any court in this State. The statute is remedial and should be given a liberal interpretation to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. Franzen v. Equitable Life Assur. Society, supra, 130 N.J.L., at page 461. The underlying philosophy of the Uniform Judicial Notice of Foreign Law Act is substantial justice. Mr. Justice Heher, in the Franzen case, supra, stated (130 N.J.L., at page 460):    the design of this enactment was to achieve that certainty in the ascertainment and application of foreign law which is attainable only when the determination is made by one versed in the philosophy and principles of law and in exegesis after the searching and exhaustive inquiry afforded by judicial notice of the pertinent statutes and decisions of the foreign state sovereignty   . It has been observed that In dealing with an issue of foreign law, whether at trial or on appeal, the rules of procedure should be designed to bring the foreign law before the court, should be flexible enough to allow for correction of inadvertent omissions, and should be keyed to effect but one result  the administration of substantive justice as it would be administered in the foreign court. Note, 37 Cornell L.Q., 748, 756 (1952). The issue was raised at the trial level and Pennsylvania authorities in addition to those received in evidence at the trial have been brought to the attention of this court in the briefs on appeal. We have accepted this aid and in addition we have made our own independent investigation of Pennsylvania law as expressed in pertinent statutes and judicial decisions of that jurisdiction. In so doing we have invoked our constitutional jurisdiction, N.J. Const. 1947, Art. VI, Sec. V, par. 3, and statutory authority to inform [ourselves] of such laws in such manner as [we] may deem proper. N.J.S. 2 A :82-28, supra. Cf. Franzen v. Equitable Assur. Society, supra, 130 N.J.L., at page 461.