Leary v. Gledhill
1951 N.J. LEXIS 182, 8 N.J. 260, 84 A.2d 725 (1951)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a cause of action is governed by the law of a foreign, non-common law jurisdiction, and neither party pleads nor proves that law, a court will presume the parties acquiesce to the application of the law of the forum.
Facts:
- The plaintiff and defendant were military friends who met in Germany in 1948, where the plaintiff purchased $1,000 of stock from the defendant in the Eranam Corporation.
- In April 1949, they met in Paris, where the defendant stated he was in constant need of money and required about $4,000 for his expenses.
- In the plaintiff's presence, the defendant telephoned his wife in the United States, instructing her to sell his Cadillac car to raise about $2,000.
- The defendant then asked the plaintiff for financial help but did not mention selling more stock.
- After returning to his base in Germany, the plaintiff mailed the defendant a check for $1,500 without specifying its purpose in the accompanying letter or on the check itself.
- The defendant endorsed the check and converted the funds into traveller's checks.
- Upon returning to the United States, the defendant repeatedly and successfully avoided all of the plaintiff's attempts to contact him.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant in the Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey (the trial court) to recover $1,500.
- The defendant denied the money was a loan, claiming it was a business investment.
- At trial, the defendant moved for an involuntary dismissal, arguing the plaintiff had failed to plead and prove the law of France, where the transaction occurred.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motions.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1,500, and the trial court entered a judgment on that verdict.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey (the highest court) certified the appeal on its own motion before the intermediate appellate court could hear it.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's failure to plead and prove the applicable law of a foreign, non-common law jurisdiction where a transaction occurred require the court to dismiss the case?
Opinions:
Majority - Vanderbilt, C. J.
No. When parties fail to prove the applicable law of a foreign jurisdiction, they are presumed to have acquiesced to the application of the forum's law. The court reasoned that while the traditional common law rule required foreign law to be pleaded and proved as fact, courts have developed presumptions to avoid dismissing otherwise valid claims. The court rejected presuming that the common law applies in a civil law jurisdiction like France as 'inappropriate and indeed contrary to elementary knowledge.' Instead, it endorsed the presumption that the parties, by failing to introduce the foreign law, have consented to have their dispute resolved under the law of the forum state. Applying New Jersey law, the evidence strongly supported the finding that the $1,500 was a loan. The defendant was not prejudiced, as he had ample opportunity to raise the issue of French law but chose not to.
Analysis:
This case establishes a modern and pragmatic approach for New Jersey courts handling conflicts of law issues when foreign law is not proven. By favoring the presumption of acquiescence to the forum's law over other, more problematic presumptions (like assuming the common law applies everywhere), the court prioritizes substance over procedure. This decision places the burden squarely on the party wishing to rely on foreign law to raise and prove it, preventing defendants from using the plaintiff's failure to do so as a surprise tactic to achieve dismissal. It ensures that cases are decided on their merits using the law before the court, rather than being dismissed on a technicality.
Unlock the full brief for Leary v. Gledhill