the claim, but did not extinguish the underlying right. That being the case, it did not apply in English proceedings and the claim on the promissory note was upheld. Authority Textbook writers Although the position on the specific point of law has subsequently changed under English law, the broad principle upheld in Huber v Steiner is still treated as good law today in England and in other Common Law jurisdictions: that a foreign law which is procedural will not be applied in the English courts, and that matters of procedure are matters which are normally to be determined by the laws of the forum. The leading English law textbooks of Dicey Morris & Collins and Cheshire North & Fawcett both cite Huber v Steiner with approval. Judicial precedent Huber v Steiner has been cited with approval widely in both the courts of England and Wales, and also overseas in relation to the principle for which it stands. In England it has been cited with approval by the House of Lords in Boys v Chaplin [1971] AC 356, and by the Supreme Court in . In Australia it has been cited by the High Court of Australia with approval in Stevens v Head [1993] HCA 19, 176 CLR 433. In the United States, it was cited by the US Supreme Court in Hill v. Tucker (1851) 54 U.S. 458. In India it was followed in Muthukanni v Andappa, AIR 1955 Mad 96 (FB). Footnotes English conflict of laws case law Court of Common Pleas (England) cases 1835 in case law 1835 in British law