from as early as Goddart v. Sir John Swynton in , six years after the union with England.160 That case then came before the House of Lords in on appeal, and though the report does not say so, it seems like-ly that Huber (and à Sande) were prominent in the written pleadings. Moreover, between and there were five reported cases from Scotland involving points of conflicts law before the House of Lords, and Mansfield (who became Lord Chief Justice in the lattter year) appeared as counsel in every one of them.161 Mansfield’s predilection for Huber in this area is one of the themes of this talk. The authority of Huber also in the U.S. is impressive. It is not just that special prominence was given to him when in - ten years after the Constitution - Alexander James Dallas, the reporter of the U.S. Supreme Court, paid Huber the honor, never repeated for other scholars of the subject, of translating the relevant chapter, and inserting it into the reports of the Supreme Court.162 The translation, he said, was made “for, and read in this cause; and I am persuaded, that its insertion here will be approved by the profession.” Remarkably and significantly, Dallas’s translation was reprinted in in the first (and only) volume of the Carolina Law Journal.163 Even more to the point, as early as Lord Mansfield was citing Huber - and Huber alone among European scholars - with approval on comity; and it is comity which is, indeed, our main concern.164 Strikingly, given the trauma of the Boston Tea Party of , is a statement inin Holman v. Johnson.165 Mansfield cited Huber and followed his proposition of law. He said, “I entirely agree with him.” 160 M. 4533 (1713). 161 See Anton, ‘Introduction’, at pp. 538f. 162Emory v. Greenough, 3 Dallas 369 (U.S., 1797). 163 Pp. 449ff. 164Robinson v. Bland, 1 Bl. W. 234 at p. 257; 2 Burr. 1077 165 1 Cowp. R. 341.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=