Reports of Cases Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of California (Volume 13 ) - Softcover

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1906. Excerpt: ... Forbes ct al. v. Scannell. contract, valid in the place where made, because not executed according to our statutory modes; and especially would it not be contended, if a right of property had vested under such law, in the foreign country, that we would not recognize the title here. The truth is, we do not consider this question as one of comity at all. It is a pure question of property. By our general laws, we recognize the duty of government to protect property, and that is property which is acquired by contract, lawful and effectual, to pass title in the place where it is made. It might as well be said that if a man made his money by usury, in California, and carried it into Pennsylvania, the Courts of that State would refuse to recognize his right, because usury is against the policy of Pennsylvania. Or if won at cards in Mexico, where no laws exist against gaming, it would cease to be his property whenever brought into this State. If this property had been sold by these assignees in China to third persons, it is not a question that the title would be upheld here if the property vested abroad and had been brought hero by the purchaser. Why? Because the attributes of property--& thing acquired by a legal mode of acquisition--had been impressed on it--where, is wholly immaterial, or, probably, by what law, unless, indeed, the Courts had to give effect to some worse principle than a rule of the common law of England, or violate some better declared public policy than a section of the statute regulating modes of assignment of property here. The authorities cited have no application to the facts here. The early cases in Massachusetts maintain only the doctrine that where the property is within the State, the Courts will not allow a contract operating on it ...