Court Opinion

ID: 9868403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:33:48.497115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:50.113709
License: Public Domain

*91ON Petition to Eb-hear.
The court’s attention is called to the fact that the record fails to support our statement that, the note sued on herein was delivered to the payee in Memphis. That is immaterial. It was executed in Detroit, Michigan, by a resident of that city, payable to the brother of the maker who was a resident of Memphis, the note providing on its face that it was payable “at 126 Court Avenue, Memphis, Tenn.”
In 10 C. J. S., Bills and Notes, sec. 49, it is said: “Where a bill or note is executed in one state or country and made payable in another, it will be presumed that the parties contracted with reference to the law of the place of payment, and the law governing will be the law of that place, the lex loci solutionis, without regard to the place where it was written, signed, or dated, or delivered. This rule, however, yields to a contrary intent of the parties, and where it clearly appears that the parties intended the contract should be governed by the law of the place where it was made or the law of some other place, or where the parties elect or stipulate that the law of another state or country shall govern, such law governs. ’ ’
In Hubble v. Morristown Land & Improvement Co., 95 Tenn., 585, 589, 32 S. W., 965, 966, this court quoted approvingly from Tiedeman on Commercial Paper as follows: “If the contract is made in one place, and it is agreed to be performed in another place, the law of the place of performance, instead of the lex loci contractus, will govern the contract.”
In that case this court also quoted approvingly the following statement in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Hall v. Cordell, 142 U. S., 116, 12 *92S. Ct., 154, 35 L. Ed., 956, as follows: “But where there is nothing to show that the parties had in view, in respect to the execution of the contract, any other law than the law of the place of performance, that law must determine the rights of the parties.”
"We have been referred to no authority in conflict with those cited above.
There is no merit in the petition to rehear and it is, therefore, denied.