Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/413

CONFLICT OF LAWS. 385 whether the public policy involved is something essential or fundamental. If it is, a contract or stipulation in violation of such policy will not be enforced by the courts of a country where it exists. Nor is it material where the contract was made, or what law the parties had in view. In Fonseca v. Cunard Steamship Co., 153 Mass. 553, a contract for an ocean passage, made in England, and exempting the carrier from liability for negligence, was enforced, " notwithstanding that a similar con- tract made in Massachusetts would be held void as against public policy." (p. 557.) See also O'Regan v. Cunard Steamship Co., 160 Mass. 356; and compare Rousillon v. Rousillon, 14 Ch. D. 351. The point whether the policy in question was fundamental was not raised in any of those cases. By Act of Congress, Feb. 14, 1892, 27 Stat. L. 445, contracts exempting from liability for negligence of master and crew were prohibited.