Rohinson v. Bland, 2 Burr. R., 1077; Ekins v. East India Company, 1 P. W., 395 ; Ranclagh v. Champani, 2 Vern. R., 395, and note; ibid,, by Raithby; 1 Ghitty on Com. & Manuf., ch. 12, pp. 650, 651 ; 3 Chitty, id., ch. 1, p. 109 ; Eq. Ahridg., Interest E. ; Henry on Foreign Law, 43, note; Id., 53; 2 Kains Equity, B. 3, ch. 8, s. 1; 2 Fonhl. Eq., B. 5, ch. 1, s. 6, and note; Bridgman's Equity Digest, Interest vii. ; Fanning v. Consequa, 17 John. R., 511; S. G., 3 John. Ch. R., 610; Hosford v. Nichols, 1 Paige R., 220 ; Houghton v. Page, 2 N. Hamp. R., 42 ; Peacock v. Banks, 1 Minor R., 387; Lepire y. Smith, 13 Louis. R., 91, 92; Thom- son V. Ketchum, 4 John. R., 285 ; Healy v. Gorman, 3 Green. N. J. R., 328 ; 2 Kent Com., p. 460, 3d ed.
The case of Arnotf v. Redfern (2 Carr & Payne, 88) is not in- consistent with the general doctrine above stated, though at first view it may seem to be so. In that case, the original contract was made in London, between an Englishman and a Scotchman. The latter agreed to go to Scotland four times a year to sell goods and collect debts, as agent for the other party, to remit the