upon an usurious agreement which neither will execute. Un- questionably it must be the laws of the place where the agreement was made, and the instrument taken to secure its performance. A contract of this kind cannot stand on the same principles with a bona fide agreement, made in one place, to be executed in another. In the last mentioned cases, the agree- ments were permitted by the lex loci contractus, and will even be enforced there, if the party be found within its jurisdiction. But the same rules cannot be applied to contracts forbidden by its laws, and designed to evade them. In such cases, the legal consequences of such an agreement must be decided by the law of the place where the contract was made. If void there, it is void everywhere." And in all cases of this sort, the court will look to the real intention of the parties.
But on the subject of conflicting laws, it may be generally observed that there is a stubborn principle of jurisprudence that wiU often intervene, and act with controlling efficacy. This principle is, that when the lex loci contractus, and the lex fori as to conflicting rights acquired in each, come in direct collision, the comity of nations must yield to the positive law of the land. In tali conflictu magis est ufjus nostrum quamjus alienum servemus} 1 Huherus, 1, 3, 11; Lord Ellenhorough, in Potter v. Brown, 5 East. E., 131; Kent Com.