question, therefore, whether a contract is usurious or not, depends not upon the rate of in- terest allowed, but upon the validity of that interest in the country where the contract is made, and is to be executed.^ A contract made in England for advances to be made at Gibraltar, at a rate of in- terest beyond that of England, would nevertheless ^.Andrews v. Pond, 13 Peters. R., 65, et post. ' Harvey v. Archbold, 1 Eyan & Mood. E., 184.
118 HISTORY OF trSUEY.
be valid in England; and so a contract to allow interest upon credits given in Gibraltar at such higher rate would be valid in favor of the English creditor.^ And in cases of this sort, it will make no difference (as we have seen) that the due performance of the contract is secured by a mortgage or other security upon property situate in another country, where the interest is lower. For it is collateral to such contract, and the interest reserved being according to the law of the place where the contract is made, and to be executed, there does not seem any valid objection to giving collateral security elsewhere to enforce and secure the due performance of a legal contract.^ And where a debtor in one country after- wards, in consideration of further delay, entered into a new contract in another country to pay a higher rate of interest upon the debt than that allowed by the law of the country where the original debt was contracted, but not exceeding the legal rate in the country where the new contract is made, it has been decided that such stipulation is valid.' And in another case it has been decided, that where the interest stipulated is according to the rate of interest allowed in the country where the debt was originally contracted, but higher than that in ^ Harvey v. Archhold, 1 Eyan & Mood. K., 184 ; Story Conf., 458.
- Conner v. Bellamont, 2 Atk. R., 882 ; Stapleton v. Conway, 3 Atk. E., 727 ; Story Confl., p. 459.
» Conner v. Bellamont, 2 Atk., 382.