Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/200

174 174 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. the contract depend on the law of the place where they are done,^ as for instance questions as to the effect upon the title of an attempted assignment of the obligation ; ^ questions as to the nature rather than the existence of the obligation depend usually on the place of performance of it ; ^ questions of due performance depend on the law of the place of performance ; * questions of discharge or postponement of the obligation depend upon the same law ; ^ and so does the amount of damages recoverable on breach of the obligation.^ In view of these authorities it would seem possible to insist in the case of foreign contracts upon the fundamental principles so clearly stated by Professor Dicey, and to dissent from his particu- lar rules. /. H. Bealejr. 1 First Nat. Bank v. Hall, 150 Pa. 466, 24 Atl. Rep. 665 ; Marvin Safe Co. v. Norton, 48 N. J. L. 410; Thurman v. Kyle, 71 Ga. 628 ; Vancleef v. Therasson, 3 Pick. 12. 2 Williams v. Colonial Bank, 38 Ch. D. 388; Lee v. Abdy, 17 Q. B. D. 309; Hall- garten v. Oldham, 135 Mass. i. 3 Cox z/. U. S., 6 Pet. 172 ; Hamlyn v. Talisker Distillery, [1894] A. C. 202. Ques- tions as to negotiability or not are governed by the lex loci contractus: Ory v. Winter, 16 Mart. 277 ; Baxter Nat. Bank v. Talbot, 154 Mass. 213, 28 N. E. Rep. 163. Jones, 125 Ind. 375. s Burrows v. Jemino, 2 Stra. 733 ; Rouquette v. Overmann, L. R. 10 Q. B. 525. 6 Gibbs V. Fremont, 9 Ex. 25 ; Ex parte Heidelback, 2 Low. 526 ; Fanning v. Gon- sequa, 17 Johns. 511. Contra in Mass. as to interest : Barringer v. King, 5 Gray, 9.
 * Rothschild v. Currie, i Q. B. 43; Bowen v. Newell, 13 N. Y. 290; Brown v.