expressly approved Emer de Vattel and Huber: “It has been said that Sir James Marriott has spoken lightly of thepraelections of Huber; but it is well known that Lord Mansfield has cited his work with approbation.”172 Huber’s preeminence in conflicts of laws in Anglo-American jurisprudence was already established. In a learned English case of , Hog v. Lashley, in which Johannes Voet, Vattel, Grotius, and Pufendorf were also cited, counsel argued: “This, which is fairly to be inferred from the opinions of Voet, is distinctly laid down by Huber, an eminent Dutch lawyer. . . . It might also be supposed, that this opinion was given upon this very case, and will decide it, as far at least as the opinions of foreign lawyers can have any weight.”173 For the United States one might single out for special attention the note of the reporter of Andrews v. Herriot in .174 On the issue of lex loci or lex fori he said: “This subject in itself deserves a treatise, but I can do nothing more here than to arrange and refer to the authorities, giving the substance of some of them. Huberus, in his title De Conflictu Legum, has broken the ground most effectually, I believe, of all the European writers; but even yet, it must be considered as but little more than broken for the use of the American student.”175 He also observed that Huber was much appreciated by Lord Mansfield and Mr. Hargrave (a counsel in Somerset’s case). Indeed, in an earlier New York case of , it was even claimed in argument that Huber had invented the distinction between the lex fori and the lex loci contractus.176 172 Presumably the reference to Marriott is inThe Ship Columbus; the reference to Mansfield is in p. 348. 173 6 Brown 577, at p. 596. 174 4 Cowen 508 (New York) 175 P. 510 176 Decouche v. Savetier, 3 Johns. Ch. 190, at p. 202. See also the later English case of Birtwhistle v. Vardell, 7 CP & F. 895 (1839-40), at p. 915, per Lord Brougham.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=