' Aoehal v. Levjf, 10 Bing. E., 876, But soo Siorj/ Oot/., 398.
' Paliy on Mor, Phil, b. 3, oh. 6 ; Kent (7om,, hot. 26, p. 81 j 1 Blk, Com., 436 J 07'oHm,,h. 2, oh. 6, s. 9; 1 Jbwgt (hm, on Ool and For. L,, 188} Qrtintoood t. (Jurtk, 8 Mass. B., 878, mi onaos olted.
PABTIOEPa OBIMINIS. 109 parties Entitled to the benefit of the matrimonial oontraot"^ The exceptions, however, to the general principles of the application of the lex lod are very numerous, and the fine-drawn distinctions and rules laid down in the many conflicting decisions have ^'ery much embarrassed the subject. Thus in one case it is said, that the days of grace allowed upon bills of exchange are to be computed according to the usage of the place in which tiiey are to be paid, and not of the place in which they were made, for that is presumed to have been the intention of the parties;" whereas the decisions in other cases distinctiy recog- nize the practice, that the drawer or endorser, upon return of a foreign bill under protest, pays the damages allowed by the law of the place where the bill Avas drawn or endorsed.* Pardessus has discussed this matter at large and states the general doctrine that the place where the bill is drawn is to govern. And he applies the same rule to damages, and says that if the law of the place where a bill is drawn admits of the accumulation of costs and charges on account of ,re-exchanges (as is the law of some countries), in such a case each suc- cessive endorser may become liable to the payment * GrmiVBood v. Owrtis, 6 Mass. E., 878 j Msdway v. Needham, 16 Mass. R., 157. * Videl T. Thommon, 11 Martin's Louis. K., 23 ; Bank of WashwgloH Y. JVv)/««, 1 Peters. U. S. R., 26, * Smdrirks v. iVonWiVt, 4 John. R., 119j Graves v. Dash, 12 John. R., 17 i Shewn t. JP^ery^ 6 Ormok R., 221 ; MaitUhwrst V. Kmn, 4 Yeates R., 19.