any rate of interest not exceeding that which is lawful in the place of performance. And in the absence of any express agreement as to interest, the law of that place will silently furnish the rule.^ Clear as this general rule seems to be, its application has not been found without embarrassment.
Thus, a party in China consigned goods to New York for sale, and delivered them to the agent of the con- signee, the proceeds to be remitted back to the con- signor in China ; on a failure to remit, the question arose whether interest should be computed according to the Chinese or New York rates. Mr. Chancellor Kent, referring to the general principle above stated, held, that it should be according to the rate in China, because the delivery of the goods being made there, and the remittance to be made to the same place, the contract was not complete until the remittance was received there. But the Court of Appeals reversed this decision ; only upon the ground, however, that the delivery of goods in China to be sold at New York, was not distinguishable in principle from a de- livery at New York; and that the remittance would be complete in the sense of the contract, the moment the money was put on board the proper conveyance from New York to China, and it was then at the risk 1 2 Kevt. Com., 460, 3d edit. ; Henry on For. Law, p. 53 ; EMnf V. East India Co., 1 P. W., 396 ; Smith v. Mead, 3 Con. R., 253 ;
Winfhrop v. Carlton, 12 Mass. R., 4 ; Foden v. Sharp, 4 John.
R., 183. See Story Conf., 469.
of the consignor. The duty of remittance was to be performed in New York, and the failure was there ; consequently the New York rate of interest only was due.^ In another case/ a note was given in New Orleans for a large sum of money, bearing the legal rate of interest in Louisiana (ten per cent.), and made payable in New York, with the amount whereof the defendants had debited themselves in their account with the