Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, annotations decided under former Code 1933, § 102-108, prior to amendment by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1, effective January 1, 1964, which read, in part, "The validity, form, and effect of writings or contracts are determined by the law of the place where executed." are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Laws of other states have no force in Georgia except on the principles of comity. Gulf Collateral, Inc. v. Morgan, 415 F. Supp. 319 (S.D. Ga. 1976).

Foreign laws not enforced if contravenes public policy or conscience, or immoral.

- Where the law of a sister state contravenes the public policy of Georgia or is immoral or violative of conscience, it will not be enforced in this state. Gulf Collateral, Inc. v. Morgan, 415 F. Supp. 319 (S.D. Ga. 1976).

Cited in Reliance Realty Co. v. Mitchell, 41 Ga. App. 124, 152 S.E. 295 (1930); Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Shahan, 46 Ga. App. 181, 167 S.E. 194 (1932); Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Howard, 67 F.2d 961 (5th Cir. 1933); Lefkoff v. Sicro, 189 Ga. 554, 6 S.E.2d 687 (1939); Fenn v. Castelanna, 196 Ga. 22, 25 S.E.2d 796 (1943); Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. Brunke, 276 F.2d 53 (5th Cir. 1960); Union Camp Corp. v. Dyal, 460 F.2d 678 (5th Cir. 1972); Putnam v. Williams, 652 F.2d 497 (5th Cir. 1981).

Application in tort cases of lex loci delicto commissi.

- A state court ought to apply the substantive law of the state or county in which the tort occurred under the lex loci delicto commissi doctrine. However, if the application of foreign law would prove insurmountably difficult, state substantive law may govern given both parties' concurrence. Lavine v. General Mills, Inc., 519 F. Supp. 332 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

Lex loci governs as to the nature, construction and obligation of contracts. Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Lovelace, 1 Ga. App. 446, 58 S.E. 93 (1907).

The conflicts rule in this state is that where a contract is made and is to be performed in another state, the laws of the latter state will govern as to the validity, nature, obligation, and construction of the contract, where they are duly pleaded and proved, and such laws will be enforced by comity in this state unless they are contrary to public policy or prejudicial to the interests of this state. Rohner, Gehrig & Co. v. Capital City Bank, 655 F.2d 571 (5th Cir. 1981).

Law of the place where contract is made is prima facie that which parties intended and that such law ought, therefore, to prevail. King v. King, 218 Ga. 534, 129 S.E.2d 147 (1962), appeal dismissed, 375 U.S. 17, 84 S. Ct. 101, 11 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1963).

Rule of the lex loci will be applied in the federal courts sitting in Georgia and acting upon an instrument made and to be performed in this state. Martin v. Bartow Iron Works, 35 Ga. 320, 16 F. Cas. 888 (N.D. Ga. 1867).

Lex loci not enforced where contrary to morals, general policy, or conscience.

- While the lex loci, as a general rule, governs the construction of contracts, it is subject, in practice, to the great controlling idea that they will not be enforced, by comity, if they involve anything immoral, contrary to general policy, or violative of the conscience of the state called on to give them effect. Eubanks v. Banks, 34 Ga. 407 (1866).

Where enforcement of a contract in Georgia draws public policy considerations into question, those public policy considerations will be determined according to laws of Georgia. Scherer v. Scherer, 249 Ga. 635, 292 S.E.2d 662 (1982).

In choice of law, Georgia follows the "grouping of contacts" or "center of gravity" theory on which law should govern contracts. A-T-O, Inc. v. Stratton & Co., 486 F. Supp. 1323 (N.D. Ga. 1980).

Local law, not lex loci, applicable to remedy on contracts.

- As a general principle, the lex loci applies only to the interpretation of contracts, and the remedy on them must be prosecuted according to the laws of the country in which the action is brought. Davis v. DeVaughn, 7 Ga. App. 324, 66 S.E. 956 (1910); Chamblee v. Colt Co., 31 Ga. App. 34, 119 S.E. 438 (1923).

This rule applies only to the interpretation of the contract touching its validity, and does not apply to the question of the remedy thereon. Gaffe v. Williams, 194 Ga. 673, 22 S.E.2d 512, answer conformed to, 68 Ga. App. 299, 22 S.E.2d 765 (1942).

Local limitation laws applicable.

- Where a suit upon a written contract executed and to be performed in another state is brought in a court of this state, the question whether or not the plaintiff's right of action is barred, being one relating exclusively to the remedy, must be determined with reference to the limitation laws of Georgia. Obear v. First Nat'l Bank, 97 Ga. 587, 25 S.E. 335, 33 L.R.A. 384 (1895).

While the validity and form of a contract executed and to be performed in another state must be determined by the laws of that state, yet when suit is brought thereon in a Georgia court, the limitation statutes of Georgia must be applied. Gaffe v. Williams, 194 Ga. 673, 22 S.E.2d 512, answer conformed to, 68 Ga. App. 299, 22 S.E.2d 765 (1942).

Where parties contemplate another place of performance, latter laws preferred.

- The place where the contract is entered into is not to be exclusively considered, if the parties had in contemplation another place at the time of the contract, the laws of the latter will be preferred in the construction of the contract. Dunn v. Welsh, 62 Ga. 241 (1879).

Contracts are to be governed as to their nature, validity, and interpretation by the law of the place where they were made, except where it appears from the contract that it is to be performed in a state other than that in which it was made, in which case the laws of that sister state will be applied in the enforcement of any contract to be there performed, so long as such laws do not conflict with the statute, powers, or rights of the state wherein it was executed and sought to be enforced. Tillman v. Gibson, 44 Ga. App. 440, 161 S.E. 630 (1931).

Contract's construction governed by lex loci, unless intended to have effect within Georgia.

- The construction of a contract is to be governed by the law of the place of its making, unless it shall appear that the writing or contract is intended to have effect principally within the State of Georgia. Old Hickory Prods. Co. v. Hickory Specialties, Inc., 366 F. Supp. 913 (N.D. Ga. 1973).

Existing laws part of contract.

- The laws which exist at the time and place of the making of a contract enter into and form a part of it. West End & A. St. R.R. v. Atlanta St. R.R., 49 Ga. 151 (1873).

Courts presume common law in force in foreign state.

- In the absence of allegations as to what the law of a foreign state is, our courts will presume that the common law is of force in that state. Selma, R. & D.R.R. v. Lacy, 43 Ga. 461 (1871).

Common law determined by looking at Georgia case law.

- Georgia courts then go through a two-step process: (1) in the absence of pleading and proof of foreign law, the courts presume that the common law is in effect in the foreign state; and (2) in determining what this "presumed" common law is, the Georgia courts, rather than looking to the foreign case law, look to Georgia case law. Budget Rent-A-Car Corp. v. Fein, 342 F.2d 509 (5th Cir. 1965).

Local case law consulted to interpret foreign statute where no applicable statute.

- The case law of the locus will be consulted only when it is interpretive of a foreign statute and where there is no applicable foreign statute. Budget Rent-A-Car Corp. v. Fein, 342 F.2d 509 (5th Cir. 1965).

Foreign contract occupies foreign legal status, but foreign law must be put in evidence.

- A contract made and to be performed in another state will be enforced by the courts of this state according to the legal status it would occupy in that state. But the law of that state must be put in evidence before it can be applied in this state. Champion v. Wilson & Co., 64 Ga. 184 (1879).

Note signed in one state and accepted in other made in other.

- Where a note is signed in one state, but is not completed until accepted in another state, it is made in that other state. Peretzman v. Borochoff, 58 Ga. App. 838, 200 S.E. 331 (1938).

Note made upon Sunday not enforced.

- As the laws of this state formerly forbid any transaction of any business, trade, or calling on Sunday, a note made upon that day, in pursuance of trade or business, will not be enforced by the courts of this state under the laws of this state, as such a contract is void. Hill v. Wilker, 41 Ga. 449, 5 Am. R. 540 (1871).

Foreign judgment on foreign note conclusive.

- Where a judgment was obtained in a foreign state on a note signed in that state, the judgment is conclusive in a subsequent suit commenced in Georgia by attachment, as to the indebtedness of the defendants. Hope v. First Nat'l Bank, 142 Ga. 310, 82 S.E. 929 (1914).

Foreign arbitration agreement's validity and construction depends on foreign law.

- An agreement for arbitration being made in another state, its validity and construction in the courts of Georgia depend on the laws of that state. Green v. East Tenn. & Ga. R.R., 37 Ga. 456 (1867).

Shipping contract's validity, form, and effect determined by state where made and performed.

- If goods are shipped in one state on a through contract, to be transported by a common carrier and delivered in another (omitting any question of public policy), the general rule is, in the absence of anything to show a contrary intent, the validity, form, and effect of the contract will be determined by the laws of the state where the contract was made and partly to be performed. Southern Express Co. v. Hanaw, 134 Ga. 445, 67 S.E. 944, 137 Am. St. R. 227 (1910).

Validity and effect of foreign, oral child custody contract determined by foreign law.

- Where the defendants in a habeas corpus proceeding relied on an oral contract as and for their right to have and retain custody and care of a child, which contract was made with the plaintiffs while all of them resided in another state, the validity and effect of the contract must be determined by the laws of that state, especially since the parties did not contemplate performance of the contract elsewhere. Rodale v. Grimes, 211 Ga. 50, 84 S.E.2d 68 (1954).

Foreign assignments of local assets contravening state law or policy not regarded.

- The courts of Georgia will not regard an assignment made in another state which, as to assets here, contravenes the law or declared public policy of this state. S. Stricker & Co. v. Tinkham, 35 Ga. 176, 89 Am. Dec. 280 (1866); Miller v. Kernaghan, 56 Ga. 155 (1876); Birdseye v. Underhill, 82 Ga. 142, 7 S.E. 863, 14 Am. St. R. 142, 2 L.R.A. 99 (1888).

Georgia courts refuse to recognize or enforce any gambling or wagering contract.

- Georgia courts regard statutes declaring gambling contracts and transactions illegal or void as embodying a distinctive public policy which requires the courts of this state to refuse to recognize or enforce any contract or transaction in violation of their terms, even though such contract or transaction may have had its situs outside the Georgia forum, by the laws of which situs it is valid, and therefore does not come within the direct operation of the Georgia statutes. The practical result of this view is that a gambling or wagering contract, in order to be upheld or enforced, must be valid both by its proper law - that is, by the law of its situs - and by the law of Georgia. Gulf Collateral, Inc. v. Morgan, 415 F. Supp. 319 (S.D. Ga. 1976).

Lex fori governs remedy in suit to enforce surety's contract.

- The lex fori, and not the lex loci, governs as to the remedy in the courts of this state in a suit to enforce the performance of a contract made in another state against a surety thereon. Toomer v. Dickerson, 37 Ga. 428 (1867).

Manner of determining materiality of representations in insurance contract controlled by lex fori.

- The materiality of representations made by the insured in the insured's application, under the laws of Georgia, is a question for the jury to decide. The manner in which this question shall be determined, being a matter affecting the remedy only, and not the validity, form, or effect of the contract, is to be controlled by the lex fori, and not by the lex loci contractus. Massachusetts Benefit Life Ass'n v. Robinson, 104 Ga. 256, 30 S.E. 918, 42 L.R.A. 261 (1898).

Alabama statute of limitations is not applied in Georgia to a note made in Alabama. Thomas v. Clarkson, 125 Ga. 72, 54 S.E. 77, 6 L.R.A. (n.s.) 658 (1906).

Law of state where contract performed governs interest rate.

- On contracts made in one state, to be performed in another, if they bear interest, the law of the state where they are to be performed governs the rate of interest to be paid. Thomas v. Clarkson, 125 Ga. 72, 54 S.E. 77, 6 L.R.A. (n.s.) 658 (1906).

If no foreign usury law, common law, as construed in this state, governs.

- Where a promissory note is both executed and to be performed in another state, in an attack by the maker upon the note for usury brought in this state, where the laws of the foreign state regulating interest charges and usury do not appear, the common law will be presumed to be there in force, and the right to collect interest in such a suit, unless contrary to the public policy or specific statutes of this state, will be governed by the common law as it has been construed and applied in this state. Folsom v. Continental Adjustment Corp., 48 Ga. App. 435, 172 S.E. 833 (1934).

Contract between foreign manufacturer and Georgia dealer is Georgia contract.

- A contract between a foreign manufacturer and a Georgia dealer, whereby the former was to ship goods to the dealer, was a Georgia, and not a foreign contract, and it must be executed in accordance with the laws of Georgia to be valid there against the trustee of the dealer for bankruptcy. In re Bondurant Hdwe. Co., 231 F. 247 (N.D. Ga. 1916).

Whether sale within Georgia securities provisions' meaning occurred in Georgia is decided on basic principles. Allen v. Smith & Medford, Inc., 129 Ga. App. 538, 199 S.E.2d 876 (1973).

Situs of a debt follows the creditor, and where the debtor and creditor reside in different states, the law of the domicile of the creditor prevails. Birdseye v. Underhill, 82 Ga. 142, 7 S.E. 863, 14 Am. St. R. 142, 2 L.R.A. 99 (1888).

Character of foreign instrument conveying property in this state determined by local law.

- Where an instrument is executed and payable in a foreign state by parties all residing in that state, purporting to convey certain standing timber in this state to one of the parties to the contract, the law of the place where the property is situated (the lex loci rei sitae) controls, in order to determine the character of the instrument, whether it is a deed to secure a debt or whether it is a mortgage. Sims v. Jones, 158 Ga. 384, 123 S.E. 614 (1924).

Foreign will conveying both realty and personalty admitted to probate.

- A will conveying both realty and personalty, executed in a foreign state according to its laws and there admitted to probate, may in like manner be admitted to probate in this state upon production of an exemplification of the probate proceedings duly certified, notwithstanding the will may not have been executed in conformity to the laws of this state. Such an instrument, however, is not a good will insofar as it attempts a devise of realty located in this state. Knight v. Wheedon, 104 Ga. 309, 30 S.E. 794 (1898).

Will probated in foreign state, treated as valid bequest of personalty.

- Where a will bequeathing realty and personalty was executed according to the law of the state where the testator resided, and was duly probated in that state, it may be treated in this state as a valid bequest of the personalty, although it was not attested by as many witnesses as required by the law of Georgia. Fraser v. Rummele, 195 Ga. 839, 25 S.E.2d 662 (1943).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 16 Am. Jur. 2d, Conflict of Laws, §§ 59, 61, 63, 81, 89 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 15A C.J.S., Conflict of Laws, §§ 4, 8, 11, 18, 20, 21. 94 C.J.S., Wills, § 150.

ALR.

- Conflict of laws as to capacity of married women to contract, 18 A.L.R. 1516; 71 A.L.R. 744.

Enforcing foreign contract, valid where made for sale of intoxicating liquor, 49 A.L.R. 1002.

Inhibition by decree of divorce or statute of state or country in which it is granted, against remarriage, as affecting a marriage celebrated in another state or country, 51 A.L.R. 325.

Applicability to contracts made or to be performed in another state or country, of a statute of the forum permitting person injured to maintain action directly against indemnity insurer, 54 A.L.R. 515; 120 A.L.R. 855.

Law of place of performance, other than that of place where contract is made and transportation commences, as the governing law of carrier's contract, 72 A.L.R. 250.

Conflict of laws as to character, form, and nature of action that may be brought upon a foreign contract, 74 A.L.R. 1331.

Law of the forum as governing the right to and rate of interest as damages for delay in payment of money or discharge of other obligations, 78 A.L.R. 1047.

Conflict of laws as regards rights of creditors in respect of proceeds of life insurance, 79 A.L.R. 809.

Action in one state or country on bond given pursuant to statute of another, 85 A.L.R. 847.

Conflict of laws as to conditional sale of chattels, 87 A.L.R. 1308; 13 A.L.R.2d 1312.

Lex loci or lex fori as the governing law as to whether the case or question is to be submitted to the jury or determined by the court, 89 A.L.R. 1278; 149 A.L.R. 775.

Conflict of laws as regards title to commercial paper and right of holder to enforce it as against the drawer or primary obligor, 95 A.L.R. 658.

Conflict of laws as to whether an instrument is to be regarded as one under seal and as to effect of seal, 109 A.L.R. 479.

Validity and effect of stipulation in contract to effect that it shall be governed by law of particular state which is neither place where contract is made nor place where it is to be performed, 112 A.L.R. 124; 16 A.L.R.4th 967.

Full faith and credit provision as affecting insurance contracts, 119 A.L.R. 483; 173 A.L.R. 1138.

Conflict of laws as to usury, 125 A.L.R. 482.

Conflict of laws as to chattel mortgages and conditional sales of chattels, 148 A.L.R. 375; 13 A.L.R.2d 1312.

Conflict of laws as to exercise of power of appointment, 150 A.L.R. 519.

Conflict of laws as regards brokerage contracts, 159 A.L.R. 266.

Governing law as regards presumption and burden of proof, 168 A.L.R. 191.

Law of state where ticket was purchased, rather than law of state where accident occurred, as governing in action against carrier for death of passenger, 13 A.L.R.2d 650.

Law governing validity and construction of, and rights and obligations arising under, a lease of real property, 15 A.L.R.2d 1199.

What law governs validity, effect, and construction of separation or property settlement agreements, 18 A.L.R.2d 760.

Conflict of laws as to partnership matters, 29 A.L.R.2d 295.

Conflict of laws as to clauses in contract for carriage of passengers limiting carrier's liability for injury or death, or time within which action may be brought, 30 A.L.R.2d 1398.

Conflict of laws as to elements and measure of damages recoverable for breach of contract, 50 A.L.R.2d 227.

What law governs in determining whether facts and circumstances operate to terminate, breach, rescind, or repudiate a contract, 50 A.L.R.2d 254.

Enforceability of provision in agreement for attorney's fees, valid in state of its execution or performance, but invalid under law of forum, 54 A.L.R.2d 1053.

Conflict of laws as to usage and custom, with respect to interpretation or performance of a contract, 60 A.L.R.2d 467.

What law governs employee's right to damages for wrongful discharge, 61 A.L.R.2d 917.

What law governs as to proper party plaintiff in contract action, 62 A.L.R.2d 486.

Conflict of laws as to Sunday contracts, 67 A.L.R.2d 694.

Conflict of laws as to group insurance, 72 A.L.R.2d 695.

Conflict of laws as to contract to adopt, 81 A.L.R.2d 1128.

What law governs validity and enforceability of contract made for support of illegitimate child, 87 A.L.R.2d 1306.

Choice of law in construction of insurance policy originally governed by law of one state as affected by modification, renewal, exchange, replacement, or reinstatement in different state, 3 A.L.R.3d 646.

Conflict of laws as to application of statute proscribing or limiting availability of action for deficiency after sale of collateral real estate, 44 A.L.R.3d 922.

Statute of frauds and conflict of laws, 47 A.L.R.3d 137.

Conflict of laws: what law governs validity and construction of written guaranty, 72 A.L.R.3d 1180.

Choice of law as to applicable statute of limitations in contract actions, 78 A.L.R.3d 639.

Choice of law as to application of comparative negligence doctrine, 86 A.L.R.3d 1206.

Conflict of laws as to validity and effect of arbitration provision in contract for purchase or sale of goods, products, or services, 95 A.L.R.3d 1145.