The relevant passage in Huber is from his Praelectiones ..., which reads: At the root of Holman v. Johnson was the fact that in England the sale of tea on which duty was not paid was prohibited. Mansfield quoted Huber’s general example in his Praelectiones ...and gave as a translation adapted to the particular case: And he held it be irrelevant that the point of the transaction was that the tea was to be smuggled into England. The case is decided very much in accordance with Huber’s axiom and its exception. What we have said about wills also applies to inter vivos acts. Provided contracts are made in accordance with the law of the place in which they are entered into, they will be upheld everywhere, in court and out of court, even where, made in that way, they would not be valid. For example: in a certain place particular kinds of merchandise are prohibited. If they are sold there, the contract is void. But if the same merchandise is sold elsewhere where it is not forbidden, and an action is brought on that contract where the prohibition is in force, the purchaser will be condemned: because the contract there was valid from the beginning. But if the merchandise sold were to be delivered in another place where they were prohibited, the purchaser would not be condemned; because it would be contrary to the law and convenience of the state which prohibited the merchandise, in accordance with the limitation of the third axiom. On the other hand, if the merchandise were secretly sold in a place where they were prohibited, the sale would be void from the beginning, nor would it give rise to an action, in whatever place it was initiated, to compel delivery: for if, having got delivery, the buyer refused to pay the price he would be bound, not by the contract but by the fact of delivery insofar as he would be enriched by the loss of another. In England, tea which has not paid duty, is prohibited; and if sold there the contract is null and void. But if sold and delivered at a place where it is not prohibited, as at Dunkirk, and an action is brought for the price of it in England, the buyer shall be condemned to pay the price; because the original contact was good and valid. . . . But if the goods were to be delivered in England, where they are prohibited; the contract is void, and the buyer shall not be liable in an action for the price, because it would be an inconvenience and prejudice to the State if such an action could be maintained.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=