plaintiff, and on suit brought they endeavored to avoid payment, upon the ground of usury. The Supreme Court of Louisiana decided that it was not usurious ; and that although the contract was to be performed in New York, where interest was only seven per cpnt., yet the parties might stipulate for interest, either according to the law of New York or Louisiana. Mr. Justice Story, in commenting on this case, says : " The Court seems to have founded their judgment upon the ground that in the sense of the general rule already stated, there are, or may be, two places of contract ; that in which it is actually made, and that in which it is to be performed. Locus, ubi contractus celebratus est ; locus, ubi destinata solutio est ; and therefore, if the law of both places is not violated in respect to the rate of interest, the con- tract for interest will be valid. In support of their decision, the Court mainly relied upon certain learned jurists of Continental Europe, whose language, how- ever, does not appear to justify any such interpreta- ^ Consequa V. Fanning, 3 John. Ch. R., 587. ' Depau V. Humphreys, 20 Martin R., 1.
DIFFICULTIES IN APPLYING RULE. 117 tion when properly considered, and is perfectly com- patible with the ordinary rule, that the interest ought to be according to the law of the place where the contract is to be performed." The learned commen- tator then enters into a critical examination of the authors referred to, namely, Huberus, Everbardus, Alexander, Duinolin, Burgundus, Bartolus, Voet and other illustrious writers, and successfully and com- pletely refutes the doctrine maintained in the case of Depau V. Plumphreys, and says in conclusion, that it is not supported by the reasoning or principles of foreign jurists. It is certainly at variance also with the doctrine maintained by Lord Mansfield and the Judges of the King's Bench, in Robinson v. Bland, that the law of the place of performance constitutes the true test by which to ascertain the validity or invalidity of contracts. And in a recent case in the Supreme Court of the United States, the doctrine is expressly adopted, that contracts made in one place to be executed in another, are to be governed as to usury, by the law of the place of performance.^ The