Hickman v. Alpaugh (1862) · DecisionDepot

Hickman v. Alpaugh

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1862Published

Before: Norton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that in the absence of proof regarding the laws of another state, the trial court must presume those laws are the same as the laws of California, including its statutes.

Issues

Whether a trial court may presume the laws of another state are different from California law in the absence of proof.
Whether the presumption that foreign laws are the same as California law applies to statute law.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There was no proof made as to the laws of Oregon, and in the absence of such proof the Court should have presumed them to be the same as the laws of our own State.”

“This rule applies to the statute law of the State as well as to the common law.”

Synopsis

Where the validity of a sale made in a foreign State is drawn in question in the Courts of this State the law of the place of contract will be presumed, until the contrary is shown, to have been the same as that of our own State in reference to the same subject matter. This presumption extends to statutory as well as to the common law.

Thus, where in an action in a District Court of this State, an issue was raised as to whether a sale of personal property made in Oregon was fraudulent, and no proof was made of the laws of Oregon: Held, that the validity of the sale must be determined by the common law and statutes in force in this State on the subject.

Norton, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Field, C. J. concurring.

On the trial of this action the Court gave the following charge to the jury: “ The sale relied upon by the plaintiff, Hickman, of a portion of the property in controversy from N. J. Farrens to him took place in Oregon, and without the jurisdiction of the State of California, and, therefore, the said sale cannot be attacked by the defendant in this cause for an actual or legal fraud provided for by the statute of California relating to fraudulent conveyances.” This charge was erroneous. There was no proof made as to the laws of Oregon, and in the absence of such proof the Court should have presumed them to be the same as the laws of our own State. This rule applies to the statute law of the State as well as to the common law. (Norris v. Harris, 15 Cal. 253, 254, and cases there cited; Leavenworth v. Brockway, 2 Hill, 201; Rob[227]inson v. Dauchy, 3 Barb. 20; Hoffman v. Carew, 22 Wend. 322-324.)

For this error the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Hickman v. Alpaugh

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief