Huber v Steiner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1 Hodg 206
2 Scott 304
132 ER 80
| Huber v Steiner | |
|---|---|
 Promissory note | |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
| Full case name | Huber v Steiner |
| Decided | 17 June 1835 |
| Citations | (1835) 2 Bing (NC) 202 1 Hodg 206 2 Scott 304 132 ER 80 |
| Transcript | StuDocU |
| Court membership | |
| Judge sitting | Tindal CJ |
| Keywords | |
Huber v Steiner (1835) 2 Bing (NC) 202 was a judicial decision of the English Court of Common Pleas relating to choice of law issues in connection with a promissory note.[1][2][3][4]
Huber brought a claim against Steiner in England on a promissory note which had been issued in France. Under French law, the relevant limitation period had expired. The court accepted that the proper law of the promissory note was French law, but the issue was whether the limitation bar was a substantive rule or a procedural one.
The court held that the French limitation period was a procedural rule, and as matters of procedure were determined by the laws of the forum (ie. English law in this case) then irrespective of the fact that the promissory note was governed by French law, the French limitation period would not apply to a case before the English court.[1][2]
Although the decision in the case is regarded as correct and the precedent is sound, a different result would follow today as a result of the statutory changes brought about by the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 and the Rome I Regulation.
The two parties to the action, Huber and Steiner, were merchants who were domiciled in and carrying on business in France. On 12 May 1813 the defendant, Steiner, issued a promissory payable to the order of the claimant, Huber. The promissory note was made and delivered in Mulhausen, France. The note provided for repayment in just under four years: on 10 May 1817. Shortly after making the note, both parties left Mulhausen. Huber went to Switzerland, and Steiner went to England, where he resided continuously thereafter.
Steiner failed to make payment on the promissory note when due, and Huber brought the action against him in England.
Trial
The trial initially came before Vaughan J sitting with a jury. The court found for the plaintiff in the substantive action, and dismissed the expert evidence that under French law the limitation period had expired. Under French law it was argued that the limitation period expired after five years (as opposed to England, where it expired after six). The claim had been brought in time under the English limitation rules, but was alleged to be barred by the operation of French limitation rules.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Common Pleas by way of case stated. The matter came before Tindal CJ. It was broadly accepted by counsel for all parties that if the French limitation rule was a substantive rule (ie. the claim was negated by the effluxion of time), then because the promissory note was governed by French law there would be a good defence. However if the French rule was only procedural (ie. it barred the remedy but did not extinguish the right) then it would not apply, as the English court would always apply its own procedure to matters before it and foreign procedural rules were not to be applied.
