LEX FORI (Lat. the law of the forum). The law of the country to the tribunal of which appeal is made. 5 Cl. & F. 1.
The local or territorial law of the country to a court, wherein an action is brought, or other legal proCeeding is taken, belongs. Dicey, Conti. Laws 66.
The forms of remedies, modes of proce dure; Lamar v. Micou, 112 U. S. 452, 5 Sup. Ct. 221, 28 L. Ed. 751; and execution of judg ments are regulated solely and exclusively. by the laws of the place where the action is instituted; 8 Cl. & F. 121; 11 M. & W. 877; Henry v. Sargeant, 13 N. H. 321, 40 Am. Dec. 146; Harker v. Brink, 24 N. J. L. 333 ; Speed v. May, 17 Pa. 91, 55 Am. Dec. 540 ; Wilson v., Clark, 11 Ind. 385; Nichols v. Scott, 12 Vt. 48; Scudder v. Bank, 91 U. S. 406, 23 L. Ed. 245; Downer v. Chesebrough, 36 Conn. 39, 4 Am. Rep. 29; Kirby v. Vantrece, 26 Ark. 368; Mineral Point R. Co. v. Barron, 83 Ill. 365 ; Williams v. Haines, 27 (a. 251, 1 Am. Rep. 268 ; Ivey v. Lalland, 42 Miss. 444, 97 Am. Dec. 475, 2 Am. Rep. 606; Stoneman v. R. Co., 52 N. Y. 429; Willard v. Wood, 135 U. S. 309, 10 Sup. Ct. 831, 34 L. Ed. 210; East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. v. Kennedy, 83 Ala. 462, South. 852, 3 Am. St. Rep. 755; Rorer, Int. St. Law 69. See PARTIES.
A cause of action arising in one state, un der the common law as there understood, may be enforced in another state where it would not constitute a cause of action, if the variance in these laws does not amount to a fundamental difference of policy ; Walsh v. R. Co., 160 Mass. 571, 36 N. E. 584, 39 Am. St. Rep. 514.
The lea, fori is to decide who are proper parties to a suit ; Meshmeier v. State, 11. Ind. 485 ; Kirkland v. Lowe, 33 Miss. 423, l9 Am. Dec. 355 ; Westl. Priv. Int. Law 409.
The lea fori governs as to the nature, ex tent, and character of the remedy ; Wood v. Watkinson, 17 Conn. 500, 44 Am. Dec. 562; Ferguson v. Clifford, 37 N. H. 86; as, in case of instruments considered sealed where made, but not , in the country where sued upon; Warren v. Lynch, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 239; 1 B. & P. 360 ; Woodbridge v. Wright, 3 Conn. 523 ; Williams v. Haines, 27 Ia. 251, 1 Am. Rep. 268; Scudder v. Nat. Bank, 91 U. S. 406, 23 L. Ed. 245; Broadhead v. Noyes, 9 Mo. 56; Dorsey v. Hardesty, 9 Mo. 157.
Arrest and imprisonment may be allowed by the lea fori, though they are not by the lea loci contractile; 5 Cl. & F. 1; Peck v. Ho zier, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 346; Bartlett v. Wil lis, 3 Mass. 88; Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. (U. S.) 1, 6 L. Ed. 253.
For the law of interest as affected by the lei fori, see CONFLICT LAWS. For the law in relation to damages, see DAMAGES.
The forms of judgment and execution are to be determined by the lea fort; Bartlett v. Willis, 3 Mass. 88; Atwater's Adm'r v. Town
send, 4 Conn. 47, 10 Am. Dec. 97; Suydam v. Broadnax, 14 Pet. (U. S.) 67, 10 L. Ed. 357.
The lea ford decides as to deprivation of remedy in that jurisdiction.
Where a debt is discharged by the law of the place of payment, such discharge will, it is said, amount to a discharge everywhere; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. (U. S) 360, 6 L. Ed. 606; 1 W. Bla. 258; Blanchard v. Russell, 13 Mass. 1, 7 Am. Dec. 106; John son v. Hunt, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 87; Boma v. Teackle, 5 Sinn. (Pa.) 332; see LEX LOCI; un less such discharge is held by courts of an other jurisdiction to contravene natural jus tice; Blanchard v. Russell, 13 Mass. 6, 7 Am. Dec. 106; Vanuxem v. Hazlehursts, 4 N. J. L. 192, 7 Am. Dec. 582. It must be a discharge from the debt, and not an exemp tion from the effect of particular means of enforcing the remedy; Peck v. Hozier, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 346; 8 B. & C. 479; Judd T. Porter, 7 Greenl. (Me.) 337; Tappan v. Poor, 15 Mass. 419.
The insolvent laws of the various states which purport to discharge the debt are, at most, allowed that effect only as against their own citizens; as between their own citizens and strangers, where the claims of the latter have not been proved, they only work a destruction of the remedy in the state of the insolvency jurisdiction; Atwa ter's Adm'r v. Townsend, 4 Conn. 47, 10 Am. Dec. 97; Braynard Marshall, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 194; Collins & Co. v. Rodolph, 3 G. Greene (Ia.) 299; McClure v. Campbell, 71 Wis. 350, 37 N. W. 343, 5 Am. St. Rep. 220; Woodward v. Brooks, 128 Ill. 222, 20 N. E. 685, 3 L. R. A. 702, .15 Am. St. Rep. 104; at least, if there be no provision in the contract requiring performance in the state where the discharge is obtained; Norton v. Cook, 9 Conn. 314, 23 Am. Dec. 342; Brad ford v. Farrand, 13 Mass. 18; Walsh v. Far rand, 13 Mass. 20 ; Hicks v. Hotchkiss, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 297, 11 Am. Dec. 472; Frey v. Kirk, 4 Gill & J. (Md.) 509, 23 Am. Dec. 581. In the federal and some state courts, the discharge of a citizen of the state, covering a discharge from an obliga tion, is not a bar against a citizen of anoth er state, although the contract creating the obligation was to be performed in the state granting the discharge; Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 223, 17 L. Ed. 531; Poe v. Duck, 5 Md. 1; Anderson v. Wheeler, 25 Conn. 603; Felch v. Bugbee, 48 Me. 9, 77 Am. Dec. 203; but see Scribner v. Fisher, 2 Gray (Mass.) 43. If claims are proved, the sub mission to the jurisdiction may work a dis charge; MeMenomy v. Murray, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 435; Clay v. Smith, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 411, 7 L. Ed. 723; Norris v. Breed, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 45, 54 Am. Dec. 700; Pugh v. Bussel, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 394. See INSOLVENCY.