Statutes of limitation affect the remedy only ; and hence the lex fort will be the gov erning law ; Bulger v. Roche, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 36, 22 Am. Dec. 359; State v. Swope, 7 Ind. 91; Nicolls v. Rodgers, 2 Paine, 437, Fed. Cas. No. 10,260; Thibodeau v. Levas suer, 36 Me. 362; Mineral Point R. Co. v. Barron, 83 Ill. 365; Munos v. Southern Pac. Co., 51 Fed. 188, 2 C. C. A. 163; Krogg v. R. Co., 77 Ga. 202, 4 Am. St. Rep. 77; Walsh v. Mayer, 111 U. S. 31, 4 Sup. Ct. 260, 28 L. Ed. 338; L. R. 4 Q. R. 653 ; Carrigan v. Sem ple, 72 Tex. 306, 12 S. W. 178. But these statutes restrict the remedy for citizens and strangers alike; 5 Cl. & F. 1; Lincoln v. Bat-, telle, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 475 ; Broh v. Jenkins, 9 Mart. 0. S. (La.) 526, '13 Am. Dec. 320. For the effect of a discharge by statutes of limitation, where they are so drawn as to effect a discharge, in a foreign state, see Story, Conti. Laws § 582 ; Shelby v. Guy, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 361, 6 L. Ed. 495 ; 2 Bingh. N. C. 202; Newby's Adm'rs v. Blakey, 3 Hen. & M. (Va.) 57. The restriction applies to a suit on a foreign judgment; 5 Cl. & F. 1; Andrews v. Herriot, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 528; Townsend v. Jemison, 9 How. (U. S.) 407, 13 L. Ed. 194. If a statute in force in the place where the cause of action arose ex tinguishes the obligation, and does not mere ly bar the remedy, no action can be main tained in another jurisdiction after it has taken effect ; Sea Grove Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Stockton, 148 Pa. 146, 23 Atl. 1063; Rath bone v. Coe, 6 Dak. 91, 50 N. W. 620. In some states, by statute, where suit is brought on a contract made in another state, the statute of limitations in the jurisdiction where the cause of action arose is made to apply.
The right of set-off is to be determined by the lex fort; Gibbs v. Howard, 2 N. H. 296; Mineral Point R. Co. v. Barron, 83 Ill, 365; Ruggles v. Keeler, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 263, 3 Am. Dec. 482. Liens, implied hypothe cations, and priorities of claims, generally, are matters of remedy ; McGregor v. Barker, 12 La. Ann. 289 ; but only, it would seem, where the property affected is within the ju risdiction of the courts of the forum; Whart.
Conti. L. § 317; Harrison v. Sterry, 5 Cra. (U. S.) 289, 3 L. Ed. 104. See L. R. 3 Ch. App. 484. A prescriptive title to personal property, acquired in a former domicil, will be respected by the lex fort; 17 Ves, 88 ; 3 Hen. & M. 57; Shelby v. Guy, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 361, 6 L. Ed. 495; Waller v. Logan's Heirs, 5 B. Monr. (Ky.) 521; Edgerly v. Bush, 16 Hun (N. Y.) 80.
Questions of the admissibility and effect of evidence are to be determined by the lex fort; Martin v. Hill, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 631; Kanaga v, Taylor, 7 Ohio St. 134, 70 Am. Dec. 62 ; Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U. S. 124, 1 Sup. Ct. 102, 27 L. Ed. 104 ; Hoadley v. Transp. Co., 115 Mass. 304, 15 Am. Rep. 106; also questions of costs ; Security Co. of Hart ford v. Eyer, 36 Neb. 507, 54 N. W. 838, 38 Am. St. Rep. 735. Exemption laws are ordi narily governed by the lex Pori; Burlington & M. R. R. Co. v. Thompson, 31 Kan. 180, 1 Pac. 622, 47 Am. Rep. 497; Illinois Central R. Co. v. Smith, 70 Miss. 344, 12 South. 461, 19 L. It. A. 577, 35 Am. St. Rep. 651.
The administration of a deceased person's movables is governed wholly by the law of the country where the administrator acts and from which he derives his authority to collect them (lex fort); and without regard to the domicil of the deceased; but the dis tribution of the distributable residue is gov erned by the lex domioilii; Dicey, Cont. Laws 674, 677; 28 Ch. D. 175 ; Jones v. Drewry, 72 Ala. 311; Hoskins v. Sheddon, 70 Ga. 528; Welch v. Adams, 152 Mass. 74, 25 N. E. 34, 9 L. R. A. 244; White v. Tennant, 31 W. Va. 790, 8 S. E. 596, 13 Am. St. Rep. 896; Cooper v. Beers, 143 Ill. 25, 33 N. E. 61. Usually the distributable residue is remitted to the administration of the domicil for dis tribution ; Appeal of Barry, 88 Pa. 131; but it is in the discretion of the court of the an ' ciliary administration to distribute such res idue ; Welch v. Adams, 152 Mass. 74, 25 N. E. 34, 9 L. R. A. 244 ; Graveley v. Graveley, 25 S. C. 1, 60 Am. Rep. 478; In re Welles' Estate, 161 Pa. 218, 28 Atl. 1116, 1117. See