where it is made is, generally speaking, valid every- where, ^wre gentium, and by tacit assent. If the rule were otherwise, the citizens of one country could not safely contract or carry on commerce in the territories of another. The necessary intercourse of mankind requires that the acts of parties, vahd where made, should be recognized in other countries, provided they be not contrary to good morals, nor repugnant to the policy and positive institutions of the State.-^ So also contracts, void by the law of the land where they are made, are void in every other country.^ And it may be stated as the settled doctrine of the public law, that personal contracts are to have the same validity, interpretation, and obligatory force in every other country, which they have in the country, where they were made.^ And the rule which the courts follow in relation to contracts made in one country, and put in suit in another, is truly stated by Huberus ; he says, the interpretation of the con- tract is to be governed by the law of the comitry where the contract was made; but the mode of suing, and the time of suing, must be governed by the law of the country where the action is are conflicting in the details, and the rules and distinctions some- what embarrassing, but the main principle has throughout been adhered to.
^ 2 Kent Com., p. 454; Eub.. Be Oonf. Leg.; Voet ad Pand., lib. 5, tit. 1, § 51. See note to 2 Kent Com., p. 458.
^ Alves V. Hodgson, 7 Tenn E., 2-11; Desehats v. Berquier, 1 Binney's R., 336; Houghton v. Page, 2 N. H. R., 163.
^ Bank of the U. S. v. Donnally, 8 Peters. U. S. R., 361 ; Wat- son T. Orr, 3 Dev. N. C. R., 361.
THE LAST SPARK OF PEEJUDICE. 107 brought.^ This rule has become part of the jtbs gen- tium in all civilized countries; and the comity of nations is satisfied by thus allowing to foreigners the use of the