Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/849

 THE ORAF KLOT TRAUTVBTTER. 83S �and that the master of said vessel has no lien on the ves'sel for his wages and advances, as set forth in his petition. In support of this view the following distinguished authority is referred to. Chief Jus- tice Story, in his Conflict of Laws, § 323, pp. 394^95, says: �"But the recognition of the existence and validity of such liens, by foreign countries, is not to be confounded with the giving them a superiority, or priority, over all other liens and rights justly acq^uired in such foreign coun- tries, under their own laws, merely because the former liens in the countries where they flrst attached had there by law, or by custom, such a superiority or priority. Such a case would present a very different question arising from a conflict of rights, equally well founded, in the respective countries. �" This very distinction was pointed out by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in delivering the opinion of the court in an important case. His language was: ' The law of the place where the contract is made is, generally speaking, the law of the contract; i. e., it is the law by which the contract is expounded. But the right of priority forms no part of the contract. It is extrinsic, and rather a personal privilege, dependent on the place where the property lies, and where the court sits which is to decide the cause.' And the doctriue was, on that occasion, expressly applied to the case of a contract made in a foreign country with a person resident abroad." �Section 324: "Huberus has also laid down the qualifying doctrine: foreign contracts are to have their full effect here, provided they do not prejudice the rights of our own country, or its citizens." �" Hence," he adds, that " the general rule should be thus far enlarged, if the law of another country is in conflict with that of our own state, in which also a contract is made, conflicting with a contract made elsewhere, we should in such a case rather observe our own law than the foreign law." �Section 326, p. 410: "Lord Ellenborough has laid down a doctrine essen- tially agreeing with that of Huberus. ' We always import,' says he, ' together with their persons, the existing relation of foreigners, as between themselves, according to the laws of their own countries; except, indeed, where those laws clash with the rights of our own subjects here, and one or other of the laws must necessarily give way; in which case our own is entitled to the preference. This having been long settled in principle, and laid up among our acknowledged rules of jnrisprudence, it is needless to discuss it further.' The supreme court of Louisiana has adopted a little more modifled doctrine, coinciding exactly with that of Huberus, ' that in a conflict of laws it must often be a matter of doubt which should prevail, and that whenever that doubt does exist the court which decides will prefer the law of its own country to that of a stranger; and if the positive laws of a state prohibit particular contracts from having effect according to the rules of the country ^ where they are made, the former must prevail.' " �Section 327, pp. 410, 411 : " Mr. Chancellor Kent has laid down the same rule in his commentaries, as stated by Huberus and Lord Ellenborough, and said : ' But on this subject of conflicting laws it may generally be observed that there is a stubborn principle of jurisprudence that will often intervene and ��� �