As to the effect of a discharge from an obligation by a state insolvent law upon a debt due a citizen of another state, see LEX Foal ; INSOLVENT LAWS.
Statutes of limitations ordinarily apply to the' remedy, but do not discharge the debt; Townsend v. Jemison, 9 How. (U. S.) 13 L. Ed. 194 ; Whitney v. Goddard, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 310, 32 Am: Dec. 216 ; Nicolls v. Rodgers, 2 Paine 437, Fed. Casa No. 10,260; Sissons v. Bicknell, 6 N. H. 557; Dunning v. Chamberlin, 6 Vt. 127 ; Goodman v. Minks, 8 Port. (Ala.) 84. See LIHrIATiona; Lzx Foal.
If the contract is be performed partly in one state and partly in another, it will be affected by the law of both states; Scud der v. Bank, 91 U. S. 406, 23 L. Ed. 245 ; Young v. Harris, 14 B. Monr. (Ky.) 556, 61 Am. Dec. 170 ; Pomeroy v. Ainsworth, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 118. But see Morgan v. R. Co., 2 Woods 244, Fed. Cas. No. 9,804 ; Mc Daniel v. R. Co., 24 Ia. 412. A contract of affreightment made in one country between citizens or residents thereof, and the per formance of which begins there, must be governed by the law of that country, unless the parties, when entering into the contract, clearly manifested a mutual intention that it should be governed by the laws of some other country ; Liverpool & G. W. Steam Co. v. Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, 9 Sup. Ct. 469, 32 L. Ed. 788.
In cases of indorsement of negotiable pa per, every indorsement is a new contract, and the place of each indorsement is in its locus contractus; 2 Kent 460; 9 B. & C. 208; Blanchard v. Russell, 13 Mass. 1, 7 Am. Dec. 106; Everett v. Vendryes, 19 N. Y. 436; Bail ey v, Heald, 17 Tex. 102.
The place of payment is the locus con traotus, however, as between indorsee and drawer. See Everett v. Vendryes, 19 N. Y. 436; Drake v. Mining Co., 53 Fed. 474, 9 C. C. A. 261.
The place of acceptance of a draft is re garded as the locus contractus; 1 Q. B. 43; Boyce v. Edwards, 4 Pet. (U. S.) 111, 7 L. Ed..799; Davis v. Clemson, 6 McLean 622, Fed. Cas. No. 3,630; Barney v. Newcomb, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 46 ; Bowen v. Newell, 13 N. Y. 290, 64 Am. Dec. 550 ; Hall v. Cordell, 142 U. S. 116, 12 Sup. Ct. 154, 35 L. Ed. 956. A note made in one State and payable in another, is not subject to the usury laws of the latter state, if it was valid in tlaat re spect in the state where it was made; Stur divant v. Bank, 60 Fed. 730, 9 C. C. A. 256. Where a contract was made in New York by a New Jersey corporation, and the New York statutes prohibited the defence of usu ry to a corporation, it was held that the New York statute would debar the corporation from setting up such defence in New Jersey ; Watson v. Lane, 52 N. J. L. 550, 20 Atl. 894,
10 L. R. A. 784. The same act was held not to govern a corporation of North Caro lina, sued in North Carolina, where the con tract was considered as a North Carolina contract; Com'rs of Craven v. R. Co., 77 N. C. 289.
A note executed in one state and payable in another is governed, as to defences against an indorsee, by the law of the latter state, though sued on in the state where made; id. As to what is presumed to be lex loci, see FOREIGN LAWS ; Lax Foal.
Dicey's view as to formal and essential validity.—Dicey (Conflict of Laws) defines lea, loci contractus merely as the law of the place where the contract is entered Into, and uses it only in that sense. To designate the law by which the contract is governed, he uses the phrase, "the proper law of the con tract," which may be, and usually is, the lex loci contractus, or may be, by the express will of the parties, or by inference, the law of some other place.. He maintains that the capacity to contract is governed by the law of the domicil (except, probably, in the case of ordinary mercantile contracts which are governed by the law of the place where the contract is made; and except, of course,, contracts relating to land). The formal va lidity of the contract is governed by the law of the place where it is made, except con tracts relating to land and contracts made in one country in accordance with the local form in respect of a movable situated in an other country, which, he thinks, may possi bly be invalid if they do not comply with the special formalities (if any) required by the law of the country where the movable is situated at the time of the making of the contract, and except, possibly, a contract made in one country, but intended to oper ate wholly in, and to be subject to the law of, another country, even though not made ac cording to the local form, if made in ac cordance with the form required, or, alldwed by the law of the country where the contract is to operate. This last exception is not, however, in his opinion, supported by ade quate authority.