^ Bank of the U. S. v. Donnally, 8 Peters. U. S. R., 361 ; Wat- son v. Orr, 3 Dev. N. C. R., 361.
THE LAST SPARK OF PREJUDICE. 107 brought.^
This rule has become part of the jus gentium in all civilized countries; and the comity of nations is satisfied by thus allowing to foreigners the use of the same remedies that are provided for the citizens of the State.
Thus a plea of the statute of limitations of the State where the contract is made, is no bar to an action brought in a foreign court to enforce the contract; but the same plea of the statute of the State where the suit is brought is a valid bar, provided the actual, open, and public residence of the party in the place, for the period limited by the statute, entitles him to its benefits.
And in admitting the law of a foreign nation to govern in regard to contracts made there, every nation merely recognizes from a principle of comity the same right to exist in other nations, which it demands and exercises for itself.^
Por lo tanto, un contrato que entra dentro de la ley contra el fraude (statute of frauds), tales como los acuerdos relativos a la venta de tierras, o la venta de bienes por encima de cierta cantidad, o por las deudas de terceras personas, no puede ser objeto de demanda a menos que conste por escrito. Si tales contratos, celebrados de palabra (parol) en un país cuyas leyes exigen que consten por escrito, se pretende hacerlos cumplir en otro país, se considerarán nulos, exactamente igual que se considerarían nulos en el lugar donde fueron celebrados, y viceversa.' Pero cuando ' ffub. De Confiictu Legum, § 7 ; De la Vega v. Vianna, 1 B. & Adolph., 284; Triviht/ v. Vignier, 1 Bing. N. 0. K., 151; Dunscom.b V. Banker, 2 Medcalfs E,., 8.
2 Blanchard v. Russell, 13 Mass. E., 1, 4.