Milliken v. Pratt
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract to recover $500 and interest from January 6,1872. Writ dated June 30, 1875. The case was submitted to the Superior Court on agreed facts, in substance as follows : The plaintiffs are partners doing business in Portland, Maine, under the firm name of Peering, Milliken & Co. The defendant is and has been since 1850, the wife of Daniel Pratt, and both have always resided in Massachusetts.
Read the full summary
Contract to recover $500 and interest from January 6,1872. Writ dated June 30, 1875. The case was submitted to the Superior Court on agreed facts, in substance as follows : The plaintiffs are partners doing business in Portland, Maine, under the firm name of Peering, Milliken & Co. The defendant is and has been since 1850, the wife of Daniel Pratt, and both have always resided in Massachusetts. In 1870, Daniel, who was then doing business in Massachusetts, applied to the plaintiffs at Portland for credit, and they required of him, as a condition of granting the same, a guaranty from the…
1Opinion of the CourtGray, C. J.
The general rule is that the validity of a contract is to be determined by the law of the state in which it is made; if it is valid there, it is deemed valid everywhere, and will sustain an action in the courts of a state whose laws do not permit such a contract. Scudder v. Union National Bank, 91 U. S. 406. Even a contract expressly prohibited by the statutes of the state in which the suit is brought, if not in itself immoral, is not necessarily nor usually deemed so invalid that the comity of the state, as administered by its courts, will refuse fco entertain an action on such a contract…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Scudder v. Union National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Commonwealth v. LaneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Inhabitants of Medway v. Inhabitants of NeedhamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
- Speed v. CrawfordCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1860
- Greenwood v. CurtisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by110 opinions
- Allgeyer v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Pritchard v. NortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Ross v. RossMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Lámar v. MicouSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Roto-Lith, Ltd. v. F. P. Bartlett & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1962
105 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.