In an action in Pennsylvania on a prom issory note governed as to the contract by the law of New Jersey, the question of whether parol evidence will be admitted to vary the contract must depend upon the law of New Jersey, and not upon the lea fork It was said that the right to introduce proof dehors the instrument for the purpose of showing what, in fact, the contract was, is an essential part of the contract itself, and not a mere incident to the remedy ; Cooke v. Addicks, 6 Pa. Super. Ct. 115, citing Tenant v, Tenant, 110 Pa. 478, 1 Atl. 532 ; Sea Grove Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Stockton, 148 Pa. 146, 23 Atl. 1083 ; and Baxter Nat. Bank v. Tal bot, 154 Mass. 213, 28 N. E. 163, 13 L. R. A. 52.
The interpretation of contracts is to be governed by the law of the country where the contract was made ; 10 B. & C. 903; Bank of U. S. v. Donnally, 8 Pet. (U. S.) 361, 8 L. Ed. 974; McDougald's Adm'r v. Rutherford, 30 Ala. 253 ; Mathuson v. Crawford, 4 Mc Lean 540, Fed. Cas. No. 9,279; 2 Bla. Com. 141; Story, Conti. Laws § 270.
The lea loci governs as to the formalities and authentication requisite to the valid exe cution of contracts ; Story, Confl. Laws §§ 123, 260; Tickner v. Roberts, 11 La. 14, 30 Am. Dec. 706; Bank of Rochester v. Gray, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 227; Ferguson v. Clifford, 37 N. H. 86. But in proving the existence of, and seeking remedies for, the breach, as well as in all questions relating to the competency of witnesses, course of procedure, etc., the lea Pori must govern ; Speed v. May, 17 Pa. 91, 55 Am. Dec. 540; Jones v. Jones, 18 Ala. 248 ; Mathuson v. Crawford, 4 McLean 540, Fed. Cas. No. 9,279; Alexandria Canal Co. v. Swann, 5 How. (U. S.) 83, 12 L. Ed. 60; Mc Kissick v. McKissick, 6 Humphr. (Tenn.) 75; Broadhead v. Noyes, 9 Mo. 56 ; Dorsey v. Hardesty, 9 157; Sherman v. Gassett, 4 Gilm. (Ill.) 521; Caujolle v. Ferric, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 177; Story, Conti. Laws §§ 567, 634. See LEX Foal.
The lea loci pArerns as to the obligation and construction of contracts ; Bryant v. Ed son, 8 Vt. 325, 30 Am. Dec. 472; Bank of Orange County v. Colby, 12 N. H. 520 ; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 213, 6 L. Ed. 606 ; 1 B. & P. 138; Aymar v. Sheldon, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 439, 27 Am. Dec. 137; Brown v. Richardson, 1 Mart. N. S. (La.) 202; Young v. Harris, 14 B. Monr. (Ky.) 556, 61 Am. Dec. 170; Carroll v. Renich, 7 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 798; unless, from their tenor, it must be presumed they were entered into with a view to the laws of some other state ; Blanchard v. Russell, 13 Mass. 1, 7 Am. Dec.
106 ; Hochstadter v. Hays, 11 Colo. 118, 17 Pac. 289. This presumption arises where the place of performance is different from the place of making; 31 E. L. & Eq. 433; Fan ning v. Consequa, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 511, 8 Am. Dec. 442; Percy v. Percy, 9 La. Ann. 185; Prentiss v: Savage, 13 Mass. 23; Scud der v. Bank, 91 U. S. 406, 23 L. Ed. 245.
It has been held that a lien or privilege affecting personal estate, created by the lea loci, will generally be enforced wherever the property may be found ; Ohio Ins. Co. v. Ed mondson, 5 La. 295 ; Story, Coin!. Laws § 402 ; but not necessarily in preference to. claims arising under the leo fors, when the property is within the jurisdiction of the court of the forum ; Ogden v. Saunders, 12. Wheat. (U. S.) 361, 6 L. Ed. 606; Whart. Conti. L. § 324. It is said that the former rule that the assignment of a movable is in valid unless it be made in accordance with the lea domicilii, now rejected by the Eng lish courts, which now hold that a transfer of goods in accordance with the lex situs gives a good title in England; Dicey, Con& Laws 532. But it is held in this country that a transfer of movables made in the place of the owner's domicil and in accordance with its laws will be enforced by the courts of the place where the movables are situated, although the method of transfer be different from that prescribed by the latter country; but not when the statutes of the place where. they are situate or the policy of its laws. prescribe a different rule; Moore's note to. Dicey, Conti. Laws 538; Green v. Van Bus kirk, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 139, 19 L. Ed. 109; Barnett v. Kinney, 147 U. S. 476, 13 Sup. Ct. 403, 37 L. Ed. 247. See supra.
A discharge from the performance of a contract under the lea loci is a discharge everywhere ; Baker v. Wheaton, 5 Mass. 509, 4 Am. Dec. 71 ; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 213, 6 L. Ed. 606; Pugh v. Russel, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 394; 2 Kent 394.
A distinction is to be taken between dis charging a contract and taking away the remedy for a breach ; Ogden v. Saunders, 12. Wheat. (U. S.) 347, 6 L. Ed. 606; Braynard v. Marshall, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 194; Norton v. Cook, 9 Conn. 314, 23 Am. Dec. 342; Pugh v. Bussel, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 394.