of such successive accumulations, if allowed by the law of the place where they made their respective endorsements. And as each endorsement is a new contract/ the law of the place where it is made, will govern, as between the immediate parties.^ Thus it may be stated in general terms, that negotiable paper of every kind is governed and construed as to the obligation of the drawer or maker by the law of the place where it is drawn or made ; and as to the ac- ceptor by the law of the place where he accepts ; and as to the endorser by the law of the place where he endorses.' And notice of the dishonor of a foreign bill, is to be given according to the law of the place where the acceptance is dishonored, though the other parties resided in England.'' And this rule seems to be generally followed in the English Courts and in some of the United States. The drawer may conse- quently be liable to one rate of damages, and the endorser to another. Thus, suppose a negotiable bill drawn in Massachusetts on parties in England, is endorsed in New York, and subsequently in Mary- ^ Champant y. Lord Ranelagh, Prec. in Chy., 128 ; Fanning v. Consequa, 17 John. R., 511 ; Henri/ on For. Law, 53; Powers v. Lynch, 3 Mass. R., 77 ; Prentiss v. Savage, 13 Mass. R., 20 ; Hides V. Brmcn, 12 John. R., 142.
" Pardessus Droit Com., art. 1500. See also Henry on For. Law, "i3 ; 3 Kent. Com., p. 115, Sd edit.; Rothschild v. Currie, 1 Adolp. & Ell., N. R., 43.
^ Potter V. Brown, 5 East. R., 124 ; Dry v. Winter, 16 Martin's Louis. R., 277; Blanchard y. RtisseU, 13 Mass. R., 1 ; 2 Bell's Oomm., 692.
^ Rothschild V. Currie, 1 Adolph & Ellis, N. R., 43; Sherilly. Hopkins, 1 Gown's R., 103 ; Ayman v. Sheldon, 12 Wend., 439.