188 See Watson, Story, pp. 50 ff. 189 See Watson, Story, pp. 28ff. 190 See Watson, Story, pp. 27f. Huber was properly understood.188But a change came with the Louisiana case of Saul v. His Creditors189 in. Judge Porter, who did not mention Huber, took the notion of comity to mean that a state could apply its own law whenever the other law would be disadvantageous to people in the state. The very restricted exceptions to Huber’s axiom were ignored. Samuel Livermore, an attorney on the losing side of the case published an angry book in , Dissertations on the Questions Which Arise from the Contrariety of the Positive Laws of Different States and Nations. He condemns the notion of comity which he assumes to be that set out by Porter in Saul, and presents his own view on conflict of laws which is actually remarkably like that of Ulrich Huber. Chancellor Kent in the second edition of his Commentaries on American Law() accepted fully the doctrine of comity as it was set out in Saul190 And he was then followed by his friend Joseph Story who indeed dedicated his Commentary to him. Story, of course, thought he was following Huber. The above applies, of course, only if the situation in issue did not fall foul of one of Huber’s exceptions. But it did not in Saul. The situation did not “prejudice the power of another state” because that exception applied only where a party had moved out of a territory deliberately to avoid that territory’s jurisdiction over the issue in question. Nor did it “prejudice the rights of the citizens of another state” because that exception applied only where what was in issue was the legal priority of two or more transactions.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=