RSK 5

Scottish cases of the time. Indeed, in the preface to the second edition () of his translation of Savigny’sConflict of Laws, WilliamGuthrie claimed this was among the rarest of books on jurisprudence. Then, in contrast to Johannes Voet, Huber’s treatment was explicitly on the theme of conflict of laws and was fully developed in one place. Johannes Voet’s views have to be gleaned from his discussion of individual substantive topics, such as marriage. Specifically on conflict of laws Huber does appear prominently in the Scottish cases, as do Johannes Voet and, to a lesser extent, Rodenburgh.153 On comity Huber is cited with approval as early as  in Goddart v. Sir John Swynton.154 The case of Nicholas Junquet La Pine v. Creditors of Lord Semple also suggests that by  Huber’s doctrine of comity had won some acceptance in Scotland: “This he did in the only way it was possible, by making out a bond in the form of the country where it was granted; which as it was ex vi legis directly effectual there, so ex comitate in every other civilized country.”155 Though the wording is not that of Huber, the argument that it is binding everywhere because of comity is to that of Huber, and not Paulus Voet’s. The court held that a bond that was null in Scotland (because of its form), but valid in England where it was made, was actionable in Scotland. Huber was also expressly cited with approval on conflict of laws inSimon Lord Lovat v. James Lord Forbes (), Randal and Elliot  153 J. Voet: Simon Lord Lovat v. James Lord Forbes, M. 452 (1742); Kerr v. Alexander Earl of Home, M. 4522 (1771); Edwards v. Prescot, M. 4535 (1720); Sinclar and Sutherland v. Frazer, M. 4542 (1768); Morison and Others v. Earl of Sutherland, M. 4595 (1746) (and the same case, M. 4571); Morison and Others v. Earl of Sutherland, M. 4595 (1749) (and the same case M. 4598), Brunsdone v. WallaceM 4784 (1789); Dodds v. Westcomb, M. 4793 (1745); Rodenburgh: Christie v. StrattonM. 4569 (and the same case, M. 4571); Morison and Others v. Earl of SutherlandM. 4595 (1749), (and the same case M. 4598). 154 M. 4533 155 M. 4451. But Kinlock v. Fullerton, M. 4456 (1739), indicates that this approach tocomitas was not universal. Comitas inNorris v. Wood, M. 4466 (1743), andLaycock v. Clark, M. 4554 (1767), is to the same effect whether on the view of Huber or of the other Dutch jurists.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=