^ Liv. Diss., and cases cited. The authorities on this point are very numerous.
' Vattel, B. 2, sec. 110. Chapman v. Robertson, 6 Paige R., 627 ; 2 Burge. Com. on Col. & For. Law, p. 577.
FOREIGN CONTRACTS. 105 sonal statutes may be distinguished consists, according to Merlin, in the circumstance that if the principal, direct and immediate object of the law be to regulate the condition of the person, the statute is personal, whatever may be the remote consequences of that condition upon property. But if the principal, direct and immediate object of the law be to regulate the quality, nature and disposition of property, the statute is real whatever may be its ulterior eiFects in respect to persons.' In regard to contracts made in foreign countries, it has mostly been held by jurists, that the law of the domicil, respecting the capacity of persons to contract, ought to govern ; but the common law .doctrine is, that the lex loci contractus is to govern.^ The general rule followed by the courts is, that the nature, construction, and validity of a contract is to be decided by the law of the place where it is made — ^locus contractus, regit actum — unless it is to be performed in another country, in which case the law of the place of performance is to govern, in con- formity to the presumed intention of the parties, that as to the nature, validity, and obligation of the con- tract, it is to be interpreted and governed by that Jlaw.^ A contract valid by the law of the place ' Repertoire de Jurisprudence, tit. Autorisation Maritate, s. 10. ^ Liverm. Diss., 34 ; Thompson v. Ketchan, 8 John. R., 189 ; Andrews v. His Creditors, 11 Louis. R., 464.
■ 3 2 Kent Com., pp. 393, 459; 3 Burge. Com., -p. 771; Stori/ Conf. L., 432, and cases cited. Lord Mansfield, in Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burr. R., 1077. The decisions on this point, however.