CAMPBELL V. CRAMPTON. 419 �enforced. The ruling upon the trial proceecled upon the theory that the agreement was goyemed by the law of New York, because the promises were to be fulfiUed in Ne-;? YoiL �It would seera that the question whether the validity of a contract, made in one place and to be performed in another, is to be determined by the law of the place where the contract is made, or by the law of the place of performance, could not, at this day, be a doubtful or open one. There is, cer- tainly, very high authority to sustain the ruling on the trial. In Story's Conflict of Laws, § 242, the rule is stated thus: "Generally speaking, the validity of the contract is to be decided by the law of the place where it is made, unless it is to be performed in another country ; for, as we shall presently see, in the latter case the law of the place of performance is to govern." Again the learned author says: "The rulfes already considered suppose that the performance of the con- tract is to be in the place where it is made, either expressly or by tacit implication. But when the contract is either expressly or tacitly to be performed in any other place, then the general rule is in conformity with the presumed intention of the parties that the contract, as to its validity, nature, obligation and interpretation, is to be governed by the law of the place of performance." Conflict of Laws, § 280. �In Andrews v. Pond, 13 Peters, 65, the doctrine is briefly stated thus: "The general prineiple in relation to contracts, made in one place to be executed at another, is well settled. They are governed by the laws of the place of performance." �On the other hand, the rule is laid down in a very recent case as follows: "Matters bearing upon the execution, the interpretation, and the validity of a contract are determined by the law of the place where the contract is made. Mat- ters connected with the performance are regulated by the law prevailing at the place of performance. Matters respecting the remedy, such as the bringing of suits, admissibility of evidence, statutes of limitations, depend upon the law of the place where suit is brought." Scudder v. Union National Bank, 1 Otto, 406. The question in that case was whether a paroi promise made in Illinois to accept a bill payable in ����
