sea (except those payable to bearer on demand,) do not require, in order to their validity in this country, an English stamp, nor a stamp of the country where they are made or drawn.(8) "In the time of Lord Mansfield," observes Abbott, J. C.,(t) "it became a maxim, that the Courts of this country will not take notice of the revenue laws of a foreign state. There is no reciprocity between nations in this respect. Foreign states do not take any notice of our Stamp Laws, and why should we be so courteous to them, when they do not give effect to ours. It would be productive of prodigious inconvenience, if, in every case in which an instrument was executed in a foreign country, we were to receive in evidence what the law of that country was, in order to ascertain whether the instrument was or was not valid." But bills drawn in England and payable abroad are, as we have seen, subject to an English stamp. If a bill be drawn in England, on a person abroad, and made payable in England, by both drawer and acceptor, it requires to be stamped as an inland bill."(u)

If the bill or note were made in any part of the British empire, it must have the stamp appropriated by the law of the place.(v)

If an unstamped bill tendered in evidence as a foreign bill be really drawn in England, the proper course is for the defendant to object to the admissibility of the bill, and at once to give his evidence on the point, and for the Judge to decide whether it be a foreign or an inland bill.(w)

A question sometimes arises as to what shall be such a making *within this country as to subject to the English Stamp Laws. The firm of B. and C., in Ireland, had one partner A., resident [*319] in this country, where he also carried on a separate trade. They sent him over four signatures, made by them, on copperplate impressions, as drawers and indorsers, with blanks for dates, sums, and

(8) Rotch v. Edie, 6 T. R. 425; Boucher v. Lawson, Rep. Temp. Hardwicke, 198; Holman v. Johnson, Cowp. 343; Clugas v. Penaluna, 4 T. R. 467.

(t) James v. Catherwood, 3 D. & R. 190; Wynne v. Jackson, 2 Russ. 351; but see the note to Dr. Story's Conflict of Laws, 2nd ed. p. 341.

(u) Amner v. Clark, 2 C., M. & R. 468.

(e) Alves v. Hodgson, 7 T. R. 241; Clegg v. Levy, 3 Camp. 166. A local stamp law must be proved by the person who relies on it. Buchanan v. Rucher, 1 Camp. 63; Le Cheminant v. Pearson, 4 Taunt. 367; Miller v. Heinrick, 4 Camp. 155. (w) Bartlett v. Smith, 11 M. & W. 483. No party is estopped from objecting to the stamp, because the bill is an inland bill, ante, p. 313, n. (ƒ).

drawees' names. He filled them up and used them. It was held, that as the bills were signed in Ireland, they must be considered as made there, and, consequently that they only require an Irish stamp.(x) So, where a bill was drawn in Jamaica, on a stamp of that island only, and a blank was left for the payee's name, it was held that an English stamp was not necessary to the validity of the insertion of the bearer's name in England. (y) So, a bill sketched out and accepted here, but afterwards signed by the drawer abroad, is to be considered as made abroad.

The presumption is, that a bill, purporting to be drawn abroad, was really so drawn. But evidence is admissible to shew that a bill, purporting to have been drawn abroad, was in fact drawn in England, and is therefore void for want of a stamp. If a bill purport to be drawn abroad, and the defence is that it was drawn here, and therefore should have a stamp, the proof should be most distinct and positive. Action on a bill dated Paris, 1st March; defence, that it was drawn in London, and proof that the drawer was in London, the 3rd March, at eleven in the forenoon. Lord Ellenborough—“It is not very probable this bill was drawn in Paris, on the 1st March; but if it were proved ever so distinctly that it was not drawn in Paris on the 1st March, it would not follow that it was not drawn there at some other time, or that it was drawn in England. Drawing here with a foreign date, to evade the stamp duties, is a very serious offence, and the fact must be made out by distinct evidence."(z)

A party to the fraud is not precluded from showing that a bill, purporting to be a foreign bill, is really an inland one. (a)

The following are instances of the application to bills of exchange of the last rule, viz. :-that though the lex loci contractus must interpret the contract, yet that the lex fori must govern the remedy.

*Statutes of Limitation affect the remedy only, and not the [*320] substance of the contract.(b)(1)

(x) Snaith v. Mingay, 1 M. & Sel. 87.

(y) Crutchley v. Mann, 5-Taunt. 529; 1 Marsh. 29, S. C.

(2) Abraham v. Dubois, 4 Camp. 269; Bire v. Moreau, 2 C. & P. 376.

(a) Ante, p. 313, n. (ƒ).

(b) Quære, whether that be so where the statute not merely limits the remedy,

(1) Hankins v. Barney, 5 Peters, 457. McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Peters,

312. Richards v. Bickley, 13 Serg. & Rawle, 395. Jones v. Hook, 2 Randolph,

Therefore, where, by the law of the country where the contract was made, the plaintiff would have had forty years to bring his action yet, as he sued in England, it was held that he must bring his action within six years. (c) So, on the other hand, though the payee of a French promissory note must, if he had sued in France, have brought his action there within five years, it was held that he might here bring his action at any time within six years.(d)

So, though a defendant may not be subject to arrest in the country where the contract is made, yet he is subject to arrest where the law of this country gives the creditor the right to arrest, if the remedy is sought here.(e)

but actually extinguishes the debt. See Huber v. Steiner, 2 Bing. N. C. 202, 211; 2 Scott, 304; 1 Hodges, 206, S. C.; Donn v. Lipman, 1 Clark & Finnelly, 1, 16, 17; Story, 2nd ed. 840. In such a case it should seem that the statute is equivalent to a release.

(c) British Linen Company v. Drummond, 10 B. & C. 903.

(d) Huber v. Steiner, 2 Bing. N. Ca. 202; 2 Scott, 304; 1 Hodges, 206, S. C. See Donn v. Lipman, 1 Clark & Finelly, pp. 1, 15, 16.

(e) De la Vega v. Vianna, 1 B. & Ad. 284; and see Shaw v. Harvey, M. & M. 526.

303. Lincoln v. Battele, 6 Wendell, on which he was sued in Texas. He 475. Williams v. Preston, 3 J. J. Mar- pleaded the statute of limitations of both shall, 600. Cartier v. Page, 8 Vermont, States. Held, that the plea of the stat 150. Chenot v. Lefevre, 3 Gilman, 637. ute of South Carolina was not good, as Estes v. Kyle, 1 Meigs 34. King v. the claim was not barred at the time of Lane, 7 Missouri, 241. Watson his immigration to Texas, but that the Brewster, 1 Barr, 381. Townsend v. plea of the statute of Texas was good. Jemison, 9 Howard, U. S. 407.

V.

Where a cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations of the state in which the subject-matter is situated, an action cannot be maintained in another state. Cargile v. Harrison, 9 B. Monroe,

518.

If the maker of a note remain in the state in which it was made until an action upon it in that state is barred by the statute of limitations, that may be pleaded in bar to an action on the note in any other state to which he may remove. Goodman v. Munks, 8 Porter, 84. A. who had become a resident of Texas, made a note in South Carolina

Smith v. Crosby, 2 Texas, 414.

Assumpsit cannot be maintained in Maryland upon a single bill made in Virginia, which according to the laws of Virginia is not a specialty, but is acaccording to the laws of Maryland. Trasher v. Everhart, 3 Gill & Johns. 234. Contra, Watson v. Brewster, 1 Barr, 381. Dorsey v. Hardesty, 9 Missouri, 157.

In an action of assumpsit upon a note, what is matter of set-off must be determined by the laws of the state where the action is brought, and not by the laws of the state where the note is made. Gibbs v. Howard, 2 N. Hamp. 296.

The protest and notice of dishonour are parcel of the contract, and not incidents of the remedy for the breach of it. They must, therefore, be regulated by the law of the country where the bill is payable.(f)(1)

When foreign law is relied on in pleading, it is necessary first to state what the foreign law is, and then to allege the facts, bringing the case within that foreign law.(g)

It will be assumed, that the law of a foreign country is the same. as the law of this country in respect of negotiable instruments till the contrary be proved. Therefore, if a promissory note made in Scotland, be sued upon in this country, and there be any difference in the law of the two countries as to the liability of the defendant, it lies upon the defendant to prove that difference.()(2)

(f) Rothschild v. Currie, 1 Q. B. Rep. 43. See Rothschild v. Barnes, Q. B.

1842.

(9) Benham v. Lord Mornington, 3 C. B. 133.

(h) Brown v. Gracey, D. & R., N. P. Ca. 41, n., per Abbott, C. J.; but see De la Chaumette v. Bank of England, supra.

(1) Ellis v. Commercial Bank, 7 How- absence of proof of any statute in the ard, Miss. 294. latter states to the contrary, that the in(2) Martin v. Martin, 1 Smedes & dorser was liable upon demand and notice, Marsh. 176. without suit against the maker, although the statute of Iowa requires such suit against the makers. Bernard v. Barry, 1 Iowa, 388.

Where a suit was brought in Iowa against an indorser, upon a negotiable promissory note made in Missouri and indorsed in Maryland, it was held, in the

THE holder of the bill at the time of action brought, i. e. the person who is then entitled at law to receive its contents, is the only person who can then sue on it. It is a good defence, that at the time of action commenced the bill was outstanding in the hands of an indorsee. But if such indorsee held the bill as agent or trustee for the plaintiff, the plaintiff may sue, though not in actual possession of the bill.(a)(1)

*An indorser who pays an indorsee has no right to sue a [*322] prior party in the name of the indorsee without his consent, and the Court has allowed the defendant, as well as the indorsee, whose name has been usurped, to raise the objection.(b)

Where there is a count on the bill, and a count on the consider

(a) Stone v. Butt, 2 C. & M. 416; 2 Dow. P. C. 335; Dabbs v. Humphries, 10 Bing. 446; Moore & Sco. 285, S. C.; Dabbs v. Humphries, 1 Scott, 325. (b) Coleman v. Bredman, 7 C. B. Rep. 871; but see Doe dem. Vine v. Figgins, 3 Taunt. 440.

(1) After due demand and refusal of payment of a bill and notice thereof to the indorser deposited in the post-office, an action may be commenced against the indorser on the same day, although, by regular course of the mails, the notice would not reach him until the next

day. Flint v. Rogers, 3 Shepl. 67.

An action may be maintained upon a note against the maker, where the writ is made after sunset on the last day of grace, although there is no demand of payment before the writ is made. Butler v. Kimball, 5 Metc. 94.