## Facts

- Thomas A. Leary and William L. Gledhill became friends during World War II and stayed in contact afterward.
- In 1948, while in Europe, Gledhill described a profitable opportunity involving Franam Corporation; Leary bought $1,000 of Franam stock from Gledhill in Germany.
- In April 1949, Leary visited Gledhill in Paris; Gledhill said he needed about $4,000, could raise about $2,000 by selling his Cadillac, and asked Leary to help him financially; no stock sale was discussed in that conversation.
- After returning to Germany, Leary mailed Gledhill a $1,500 check payable to Gledhill, without noting the purpose on the check or in an accompanying letter.
- Gledhill endorsed the check and converted the proceeds into traveler’s checks.
- The parties did not meet again until trial; after returning to the United States, Leary made repeated unsuccessful attempts to locate Gledhill to obtain repayment.
- Leary claimed the $1,500 was a loan to be repaid; Gledhill claimed it was an investment similar to the earlier stock purchase.
- Because the transfer was sent from Germany to Gledhill in France, Gledhill argued French law controlled and that Leary could not recover because French law was not pleaded or proved.

## Issues

1. Whether the $1,500 transfer was a loan repayable on an implied promise, or an investment not recoverable as money lent.
2. Whether a New Jersey court must dismiss or reverse when a transaction is foreign-based but the relevant foreign law is not pleaded or proved.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the judgment for Leary entered on the jury verdict.
- The evidence supported the jury’s finding that the $1,500 was a loan, not an investment, and that an obligation to repay could be inferred from the circumstances.
- The failure to plead or prove French law did not bar recovery; in the absence of satisfactory proof of foreign law, the court could presume it was the same as forum law or apply forum law based on party acquiescence.

## Legal Principles

- A loan agreement may be proven through an implied contract; an express promise to repay is not required when the surrounding circumstances permit an inference of repayment obligation.
- Foreign law relied upon by a party is generally treated as a matter to be pleaded and proved; if not proved, the court need not dismiss solely for that reason.
- When foreign law is not proved, the forum may presume the foreign law is similar to forum law or apply forum law where the parties effectively proceed on that basis.
- A party asserting application of foreign law must show more than a foreign locus; absent a showing that foreign law differs in a material way, application of forum law will not be treated as reversible error.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a jury verdict recovering $1,500 as money lent, finding sufficient evidence of an implied promise to repay and holding that the absence of pleaded and proved foreign law did not defeat the claim because the forum could presume similarity to its own law or apply its own law where foreign law was not established.


Leary v. Gledhill, 8 N.J. 260, 84 A.2d 725 (N.J. 1951)