Pritchard v. Norton
1882 U.S. LEXIS 1522, 106 U.S. 124, 1 S. Ct. 102 (1882)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The validity and substance of a contract are governed by the law of the place where it is to be performed (lex loci solutionis), as the parties are presumed to have made the contract with a view to that law. Matters of substance, such as the sufficiency of consideration, are determined by the law of performance, not by the law of the forum (lex fori) or the place of execution (lex loci celebrationis).
Facts:
- Pritchard acted as a surety on an appeal bond for a railroad company in a legal proceeding in Louisiana.
- This action created a legal liability for Pritchard under Louisiana law.
- Subsequently, McComb and Norton executed and delivered a bond of indemnity to Pritchard in the state of New York.
- The indemnity bond promised to hold Pritchard harmless and indemnify him against all loss or damage arising from his liability as surety on the Louisiana appeal bond.
- A judgment was later rendered against Pritchard in Louisiana on the appeal bond for which he was the surety.
- Under New York law, the pre-existing liability was not valid consideration for the indemnity bond, rendering it unenforceable; under Louisiana law, it was valid consideration.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued McComb and Norton in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana to enforce the indemnity bond.
- The Circuit Court, applying New York law, concluded that the bond was invalid for lack of consideration and entered a judgment for the defendants.
- The plaintiff, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 the law of the place of performance (Louisiana), rather than the law of the place of execution (New York), govern the validity of an indemnity contract when the underlying obligation and the performance of the indemnity are centered in the place of performance?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Matthews
Yes, the law of the place of performance governs the validity of the contract. A contract is governed by the law with a view to which it was made, which is presumed to be the law of the place of its performance. The court distinguished between substantive matters, which affect the rights and obligations of the parties, and procedural matters, which relate to the remedy. The question of whether consideration is valid is a matter of substance that goes to the constitution of the contract itself, not a matter of procedure to be determined by the law of the forum. Here, the original liability was in Louisiana, the judgment against the surety was rendered in Louisiana, and the only way to perform the indemnity was to provide funds in Louisiana. Therefore, the parties clearly intended for the obligation to be fulfilled in Louisiana, making Louisiana law the governing law for the contract's validity.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the primacy of the law of the place of performance (lex loci solutionis) over the law of the place of execution (lex loci celebrationis) in American conflict of laws jurisprudence for contracts. It clarifies that substantive issues, such as the validity of consideration, are determined by the law the parties presumably intended to govern their agreement, which is typically where performance is due. This shifts the analysis from a rigid, formalistic rule based on where the contract was signed to a more flexible approach centered on the parties' intent and the contract's 'center of gravity.' The decision reinforces the fundamental distinction between substance (governed by the law of the contract) and procedure (governed by the law of the forum), a cornerstone of choice-of-law analysis.
