PERSONAL PROPERTY. For the general rules as to the disposition of personal property, see Domicil,. Bills of exchange and promissory notes are to be governed, as to validity and interpretation, by the law of the place of making, as are other contracts. The resi dence of the drawee of a bill of exchange, and the place of making a promissory note where no other place of payment is speci fied, is the locus contractus; 10 B. & C. 21; 4 C. & P. 35; Bissell v. Lewis, 4 Mich. 450; Davis v. Clemson, 6 McLean, 622, Fed. Cas. No. 3,630 ; Barney v. Newcomb, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 46 ; Peck v. Hibbard, 26 Vt. 698, a Am. Dec. 605 ; Wilson v. Lazier, 11 Grath (Va.) 477; Lizardi v. Cohen, 3 Gill (Md.) 430; Fessenden v. Taft, 65 N. H. 39, 17 Atl. 713; Stevens v. Gregg, 89 Ky. 461, 12 S. W. 775; see Raymond v. Holmes, 11 Tex. 54; Fra zier v. Warfield, 9 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 220, where the place of address is said to be the place of making. As between the drawee and drawer and other parties (but not as between an indorser and indorsee, Everett v. Ven dyres, 19 N. Y. 436 ; but see Peck v. Mayo, 14 Vt. 33, 39 Am. Dec. 205) ; each indorse ment is considered a new contract; Young v. Harris, 14 B. Monr. (Ky.) 558, 61 Am. Dec. 170 ; Cook v. Litchfield, 5 Sandf. (N. Y.) 330; Cox v. Adams, 2 Ga. 158 ; Dundas v. Bow ler, 3 McLean 397, Fed. Cas. No. 4,141. On a bill of exchange drawn in one state and payable in another, the time within which notice of protest must be mailed is deter mined by the law of the latter state; Brown v. Jones, 125 Ind. 375, 25 N. E. 452, 21 Am. St. Rep. 227. In case of commercial paper the notice required to bind drawer and in dorser is determined by law of place of draw ing and indorsing. See LEX LOCI. A stat ute of limitations of a foreign state provid ing that an action on a note shall be brought within a certain time after the cause of ac tion accrues bars the debt itself if not brought within the time limited, and may be pleaded in bar of an action brought on the note in another state; Rathbone v. Coe, 6 Dak. 91, 50 N. W. 620. See MacNichol v. Spence, 83 Me. 87, 21 Att. 748. Place of ment governs as to all matters connected with payment ; Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U. S. 124, 1 Sup. Ct. 102, 27 L. Ed. 104; box v. Childs, 165 Mass. 408, 43 N. E. 124.
The better rule as to the rate of interest to be allowed on bills of exchange and prom issory notes, where no place of payment is specified and no rate of interest mentioned, seems to be the rate of the lex /oat; 5 C. & F. 1, 12 ; Slacum v. Pomery, 6 Cra. (U. S.) 221, 3 L. Ed. 205 ; The Star, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 101, 4 L. Ed. 338 ; James v. Allen, 1 Dall. (Pa.) 191, 1 L. Ed. 93 ; Hawley v. Sloo, 12 La. Ann. 815. And see Friend v. Wilkinson, 9 Grath (Va.) 31; Buck v. Little, 24 Miss. 463 ; Price v. Page & Bacon, 24 Mo. 65 ; 1 Pars. Contr. 238; Cope v. Alden, 53 Barb. (N. Y.) 350 ; Campbell v. Nichols, 33 N. J. L. 81; The Star, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 101, 4 L. Ed. 338. The damages recoverable on a bill of exchange not paid are those of the place where the plaintiff is entitled to reimburse ment. In the United States, these are gen erally fixed by statute ; Hendricks v. Frank lin, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 119 ; Grimshaw v. Ben der, 6 Mass. 157 ; Smith v. Shaw, 2 Wash. C. C. 167, Fed. Cas. No. 13,107 ; Grant v. Healey, 3 Sumn. 523, Fed. Cas. No. 5,696.
Where a place of payment is specified, the interest of that place must be allowed; French v. French, 126 Mass. 360 ; Peck v. Mayo, 14 Vt. 33, 39 Am. Dec. 205 ; Pomeroy v. Ainsworth, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 118 ; Dickin son v. Edwards, 77 N. Y. 573, 33 Am. Rep. 671. See Fanning v. Consequa, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 511, 8 Am. Dec. 442 ; except that when a contract is made in one state, to be performed in another, parties may contract for the legal rate of interest allowable in either state, provided such contract is enter ed into in good faith, and not merely to avoid the usury laws; Depau v. Humphreys, 8 Mart. N. S. (La.) 1; Townsend v. Riley, 46 N. H. 300; Miller v. Tiffany, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 310, 17 L. Ed. 540 ; Berrien v. Wright, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 213 ; Kilgore v. Dempsey, 25 Ohio St. 413, 18 Am. Rep. 306 ; Arnold v. Potter, 22 Ia. 194 ; Brownell v. Freese, 35 N. J. L. 285, 10 Am. Rep. 239. See Odom v. Security Co., 91 Ga. 505, 18 S. E. 131; con tra, Story, Conti. Laws § 298. A note made in one state and payable in another, is not subject to the usury laws of the latter state, if it is valid in that respect in the state where it was made ; Matthews v. Paine, 47 Ark. 54, 14 S. W. 463 ; Brewster v. Lyndes, 2 Miles (Pa.) 185.