Clark v. Tarbell

5 Citing cases

  1. In re Tradz, LLC

    175 N.H. 98 (N.H. 2022)

    "Every state has entire jurisdiction over all property, personal as well as real, within its own territorial limits." Clark v. Tarbell, 58 N.H. 88, 88 (1877) (emphasis added). In the absence of a valid choice of law provision, property located in one state cannot be affected by the law of any other state.

  2. Thomas G. Jewett, Jr. v. Keystone Driller Co.

    282 Mass. 469 (Mass. 1933)   Cited 22 times

    The general rule, however, as to the situs of tangible chattels, and the rule applicable to this case, is that expressed by Gray, J., in Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18, 22, where he said, "No general principles of law are better settled, or more fundamental, than that the legislative power of every State extends to all property within its borders, and that only so far as the comity of that State allows can such property be affected by the law of any other State." Clark v. Tarbell, 58 N.H. 88. This has often been applied to the taxation of tangible chattels owned by nonresidents.

  3. Continental Gin Co. v. Pannell

    61 Okla. 102 (Okla. 1916)

    They were governed by the law of the Indian Territory. Green v. Van Buskirk, 7 Wall. 139 [19 L.Ed. 109]; Clark v. Tarbell. 58 N. H. 88; Guillander v. Howell, 35 N.Y. 657; Whitman v. Conner, 40 N.Y. Super. Ct. 339, 346; Iron Works v. Warren, 76 Ind. 512 [40 Am Rep. 258]; Martin v. Potter, 34 Vt. 87; Tied. Sales, sec. 239; Jones, Chat. Mortg. sec. 305."

  4. Roberts v. Norcross

    45 A. 560 (N.H. 1898)   Cited 6 times

    The agreement was made with reference to and must be governed by such law. Clark v. Tarbell, 58 N.H. 88; Hallgarten v. Oldham, 135 Mass. 1. The assignment was a bar to the right of the principal defendants to recover these funds, and, no fraud being shown, it is equally a bar to the plaintiff's recovery of the same.

  5. Machine Works v. Lang

    31 A. 20 (N.H. 1892)   Cited 13 times
    In Cleveland Mach. Works v. Lang, 67 N.H. 348 (31 A. 20), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire recognized the general rule that contracts respecting the sale or transfer of personal property, valid where made, and where the property is situated, would be upheld and enforced in another state, although not executed according to the laws of the latter state, unless such enforcement would be in contravention of a positive law and public interest.

    The property being situate in this state at the time the title passed, the validity and obligation of the contract of transfer are to be tested by the laws of this state. Clark v. Tarbell, 58 N.H. 88. II. The defence set up in the second brief statement concludes the plaintiffs' right of recovery, whatever may be held as to the first.