This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
If there is no evidence as to the law of the state which controls the contract, the question of what that law will be presumed to be is one on which there is some conflict of authority. It has been said that it will be presumed that in such cases the law of the foreign state is the same as the law of the forum. This presumption has been applied to the notice necessary to hold an indorser,1 and to statutes defining usury.2 While most of the cases presented are those in which the basis of the law of the foreign jurisdiction is the Common Law, the same presumption has applied where the law of a foreign country in which the Common Law is not in force is involved.3 Another view is that it will be presumed that the law of the foreign state will be presumed to be the Common Law, which means, of course, the Common Law as the court of the forum interprets it.4 Thus it will be presumed that the contract of a married woman domiciled in a foreign state and made there, is void as at Common Law.5 Another view that has been expressed is that if some positive provision of statute law, like usury, is involved, it will be presumed in the absence of proof that the law is such that the contract is valid.6
6 Cravens v. Ins. Co., 148 Mo. 583; 71 Am. St. Rep. 628; 53 L. R. A. 305; 50 S. W. 519; affirmed, New York Life Ins. Co. v. Cravens, 178 U. S. 389; Washington Investment Association v. Stanley, 38 Or. 319; 84 Am. St. .Rep. 793; 63 Pac. 489.
1 Second National Bank v. Smith, 118 Wis. 18; 94 N. W. 664.
2 Mutual, etc., Association v. Worz, 67 Kan. 506; 73 Pac. 116.
3 Mittenthal v. Mascagni, 183 Mass. 19; 97 Am. St. Rep. 404; 60 L. R. A. 812; 66 N. E. 425.
4 Terry v. Robbins, 128 N. C. 140; 83 Am. St. Rep. 663; 38 S. E. 470.
5 Terry v. Robbins, 128 N. C. 140} 83 Am. St. Rep. 663; 38 S. E. 470.