Pryor v. Wright
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Error to the Circuit Court of Hempstead county. The Hon. John Quillin, Circuit Judge, presiding. Argued and submitted at the July term, 1852. admitting that, according to the laws of this State it is not necessary to aver or prove presentment and demand at the place of payment: made the following points : 1. That the law of the place where the contract is to be performed, governs, as to itsyalidity, nature, obligation, performance, interpretation and discharge, no matter…
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Hempstead county. The Hon. John Quillin, Circuit Judge, presiding. Argued and submitted at the July term, 1852. admitting that, according to the laws of this State it is not necessary to aver or prove presentment and demand at the place of payment: made the following points : 1. That the law of the place where the contract is to be performed, governs, as to itsyalidity, nature, obligation, performance, interpretation and discharge, no matter where the contract is made. Story on Conjl. of Laws, 233, 239. 2 Kent’s Com. 450. 2 Burr. Rep. 1077. 13 Mass. 23. 8 Mar.…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scott
Wright sued Pryor, in debt, in the Hempstead Circuit Court, on two promissory notes, payable'at the office of Wright, Williams, & Co., New Orleans. Besides the pleas of nil debet and payment, on which issues were joined, Pryor interposed a further plea, that the notes in the declaration mentioned, were made payable at the office of Wright, Williams 4" Co., New Orleans, State of Louisiana, one of the United States of America, and that, by the laws of that State, at the dates of the notes and then still in force, all notes made payable at a particular place within that State, are required to be…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State National Bank v. HyattSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Lawler v. LawlerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913