Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Johns. 285

Thompson v. Ketcham

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1809

New York Supreme Court · decided 1809-05-15

<p>Where a note was made in Jamaica, payable in tyeio-i'ovk, it was held that the contract was to he governed by the laws of -veiu-Yoi-k. Where no place is mentioned in a note at which the money is to he paid, it seem?, that parol evidence is admissible to show at what place it was agreed that the money should be paid.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1809-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 1872

3 state decisions

2018091810182018301840185018601870decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Thompson, J.

¶1delivered the opinion of the court. The note or instrument given by the defendant, and upon which this suit is brought, is as follows : “ I promise to captain Samuel Thompson 80 dollars, for value received. Montego Bay, April 21, 1807.” The defendant interposed a plea of infancy, and upon the trial proved, that when the note was executed, he was under 21 years of age. The judge at the trial ruled, that to make this plea available, the defendant must also prove, that by the laws of Jamaica, where the note was given, infancy would have been a bar to the action. From the testimony in the case, it appears, that the note was to be paid in New-York on the arrival of the parties here. No objection was made to such evidence, and it might, on the present motion, be assumed, as a fact admitted, without inquiring into the legality of such proof. But I see no objection to such testimony. Nothing appears upon the face of the note, showing it to be payable at any particular place. The evidence was not contradictory to the written contract. The loose and informal manner in which the note is drawn, shows the written contract, in some measure, imperfect, and all the circumstances in the case corroborate the plaintiff’s confession, and afford conclusive evidence, that the money, for which the note was given, was lent with a view to its being repaid on the arrival of the parties in New-York. If this, then, is to be taken as the contract between the parties, the case stands precisely on the same footing as if the note had been made in this state. For it is a well settled rule, that where a contract is made in,reference to another country, in which it is to be executed, it must be governed by the laws of the place where it is to have its effect. (2 Burr. 1078. 2 Johns. Rep. 94.) In this view of the case, it is immaterial what were the laws of Jamaica on the subject; we must be governed by our own laws, according to which, the defendant’s proof was sufficient to bar a recovery against him.

¶2*289We are accordingly of opinion, that the verdict must be set aside, and a new trial awarded, with leave to abide the event of the suit.

¶3New trial granted.

/4/johns/285 · .json · Public domain