In instances in which a negotiable instrument has circulated in two or more jurisdictions courts have had some difficulty in determining whether to apply the laws of one jurisdiction or the other in determining whether the complaining party had in fact obtained title to the instrument, and in determining the rights and liabilities of the parties in respect to the instrument. If an instrument, by its terms, discloses that it was drawn and was payable in the same jurisdiction in which the instrument was transferred, the courts are not faced with a conflict of laws problem for clearly the laws of only one jurisdiction could be involved. However, in instances where the transfer of the instrument occurred in a jurisdiction other than that in which it was by its terms drawn and payable or where it was drawn in one jurisdiction, payable in a second jurisdiction and transferred in a third jurisdiction, the courts may well be faced with the problem of determining whether to apply the laws of the first, second or even the third jurisdiction in order to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties who have in some capacity been associated with the instrument. It is the intended purpose of this article to consider certain of the conflict of laws problems which courts in the past have with some degree of success resolved.
William O. Morris,
Some Conflict of Laws Problems Relating to Negotiable Instruments,
W. Va. L. Rev.
Available at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr/vol66/iss2/3