63

[§ 168] 6. Liability of Maker. The law of the place of contract governs the general liability of the maker, except in so far as controlled by the law of the place where the instrument is made payable.64 However, if no particular place of payment is specified the law of the place of contract governs." Generally his liability to others 66 or his right to set up an equitable defense 67 will be unaffected by the law of the place of transfer.

65

71

defenses against the indorsee, and, as far as that place is his intended place of payment, determines the measure of his liability for interest and damages.72 However, the place of contract is controlled by the law of the place of payment where that appears. The drawer's contract is for payment at the place where the bill was drawn, if no other place is expressed or indicated in the bill.74

73

[170] 8. Liability of Sureties. The law of the place of contract, except so far as it is controlled by that of an express place of payment, governs the liability of the surety to other parties and the liability of the principal to the surety.75 The contract of one who signs a note as a joint maker but who is in fact a surety is complete when his signature is affixed and the instrument is delivered to the payee, so as to be governed by the law of the place where the instrument is executed and delivered rather than of the state where the note is payable, although the instrument had no legal inception until it was discounted in another state, where such surety had no knowledge that it was to be negotiated there and did not intend that his contract should be Ind.-Hunt v. Standart, 15 Ind. 33, | refused acceptance. The liability of 77 AmD 79. the drawer of the bill was governed by the law of New York. Story v. McKay, 15 Ont. 169.

[169] 7. Liability of Drawer. The rules as to what law governs the liability of a drawer of an instrument, such as a bill of exchange or a check, are the same as those which govern the liability of an indorser for transfer, both being secondarily liable, and hence the law of the place where the instrument is drawn governs. The contract of the drawer of a bill is ordinarily regarded as made at the place where the bill is drawn and is governed by the law of that place in regard to the payee and any subsequent holder, as to its form and nature and the obligation and effect thereof,68 except as hereinafter indicated.69 This law governs his liability to an indorsee,7° determines his right to set up 63. Hyatt v. State Bank, 8 Bush (Ky.) 193; Woodruff V. Hill, 116 Mass. 310; Barrett v. Dodge, 16 R. I. 740, 19 A 530, 27 AmSR 777.

64. U. S.-Davis v. Clemson, 7 F. Cas. No. 3,630, 6 McLean 622.

Ala.-Camp v. Randle, 81 Ala. 240, 2 S 287.

Ark.-Pryor v. Wright, 14 Ark. 189. Conn. Smith v. Mead, 3 Conn. 253, 8 AmD 183.

Ind. Aurora v. West, 22 Ind. 88, 85 AmD 413; Hunt v. Standart, 15 Ind. 33, 77 ÁmD 79; Midland Steel Co. v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 34 Ind. A. 107, 72 NE 290.

Mo.-Brown v. Worthington, 162 Mo. A. 508, 142 SW 1082.

N. Y.-Merchants' Bank v. Brown, 86 App. Div. 599, 83 NYS 1037; Thompson v. Ketcham, 4 Johns. 285. Oh.-Montana Coal, etc., Co. v. Cincinnati Coal, etc., Co., 69 Oh. St. 351, 69 NE 613.

Wis.-Brown v. Gates, 120 Wis. 349, 97 NW 221, 98 NW 205, 1 AnnCas 85. [a] Joint makers.-(1) This is true also of the liability of joint makers (Phipps v. Harding, 70 Fed. 468, 17 CCA 203, 30 LRA 513), (2) although the law of the place of payment, New York, discharging a joint maker by the recovery of judgment against his comaker only, will not be enforced in Missouri to give that effect to a judgment recovered in Louisiana (Wiley v. Holmes, 28 Mo. 286, 75 AmD 126).

65. Barrett v. Dodge, 16 R. I. 740, 19 A 530, 27 AmSR 777.

66. Ory v. Winter, 4 Mart. N. S. (La.) .277.

[a] The liability of the maker to the indorsee is determined by the law of the state where the note is made and not of that where it is indorsed. Lockwood v. Lindsay, 6 App. (D. C.) 396; Woodruff v. Hill, 116 Mass. 310; Miller v. Mayfield, 37 Miss. 688.

67. U. S.-Brabston v. Gibson, 9 How. 263, 13 L. ed. 131.

Ill-Stacy v. Baker, 2 Ill. 417. Ind. Yeatman v. Cullen, 5 Blackf. 240.

Miss.-Allen v. Bratton, 47 Miss.

119.

Va.-Wilson v. Lazier, 11 Gratt. (52 Va.) 477.

68. Ú. S.-Orr v. Lacy, 18 F. Cas. No. 10,589, 4 McLean 243 (as to liability for damages); Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Sutton Mfg. Co., 52 Fed. 191, 3 CCA 1, 17 LRA 595 [foll Tilden V. Blair, 21 Wall. 241, 22 L. ed. 632].

Iowa.-Thorp v. Craig, 10 Iowa 461.
Miss.-Wood v. Gibbs, 35 Miss. 559.
N. J. Brownell v. Freese, 35 N.
J. L. 285, 10 AmR 239.

N. Y.-Amsinck v. Rogers, 189 N.
Y. 252, 82 NE 134, 121 AmSR 858,
12 LRANS 875, 12 AnnCas 450; Car-
roll v. Upton, 4 N. Y. Super. 171 (as
to place where notice to drawer
should be sent); Aymar v. Sheldon,
12 Wend. 439, 27 AmD 137; Hicks v.
Brown, 12 Johns. 142.

Eng.-Gibbs v. Fremont, 9 Exch.
25
(as to rate of interest charge-
able); Allen v. Kemble, 6 Moore P.
C. 314, 13 Reprint 704.

"It is familiar law that the con-
tracts of the different parties to a
bill of exchange are independent and
carry different obligations. The
drawer of such a bill does not con-
tract to pay the money in the for-
eign place on which it is drawn, but
only guarantees its acceptance and
payment in that place by the drawee,
and agrees, in default of such pay-
ment, upon due notice, to reimburse
the holder in principal and damages
at the place where he entered into
the contract. His contract is re-
garded as made at the place where
the bill is drawn, and as to its form
and nature and the obligation and
effect thereof is governed by the law
of that place in regard to the payee
and any subsequent holder. (Story
on Bills of Exchange, §§ 131, 154.)
While as to certain details, such as
the days of grace, the manner of
making the protest and the person by
whom protest shall be made, the law
or custom of the place where it is
payable will govern, the necessity of
making a demand and protest and
the circumstances under which the
same may be required or dispensed
with are incidents of the original
contract which are governed by the
law of the place where the bill is
drawn rather than of the place where
it is payable. They constitute im-
plied conditions upon which the lia-
bility of the drawer is to attach ac-
cording to the lex loci contractus.
(Id. §§ 155, 175.) These principles
have been affirmed and enunciated by
so many decisions that it would be
out of place to attempt a general re-
view of the latter." Amsinck V.
Rogers, 189 N. Y. 252, 257, 82 NE
134, 121 AmSR 858, 12 LRANS 875, 12
AnnCas 450.

[a] Illustration.-A Canadian while Ala.-Crawford v. Mobile Branch in New York drew a bill in favor of Bank, 6 Ala. 12, 41 AmD 33. plaintiff on a person in Canada who

[b] Reason for rule.-The transfer by indorsement is equivalent in effect to the drawing of a bill, the indorser being in almost every respect considered as a new drawer. Aymar v. Sheldon, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 439, 27 AmD 137.

69. See infra §§ 177-179.
70.

436.

Everett v. Vendryes, 19 N. Y. 71. Babston v. Gibson, 9 How. (U. S.) 263, 13 L. ed. 131; Stacy v. Baker, 2 Ill. 417; Yeatman V. Cullen, Blackf. (Ind.) 240; Wilson v. Lazier, 11 Gratt. (52 Va.) 477.

72. See infra § 1450.

73. Wood v. Gibbs, 35 Miss. 559 (admissibility of defense); Sylvester v. Crohan, 138 N. Y. 494, 34 NE 273 (time for presentment).

[a] Measure of damages, rule applies to Ex p. Heidelback, 11 F. Cas. No. 6,322, 2 Lowell 526, 15 NatBankr Reg 495; Tenant v. Tenant, 110 Pa. 478, 1 A 532; In re Commercial Bank, 36 Ch.D. 522.

As to presentment and notice see infra §§ 177-179.

[b] Lex loci solutionis determines (1) the drawer's liability as to rate of interest and usury in acceptance, the acceptor being governed by that law and being the principal debtor. Brownell v. Freese, 35 N. J. L. 285, 10 AmR 239. (2) It also determines the drawer's liability on the question of the sufficiency of form of indorsement made in another county and valid there and at the place of payment. Everett v. Vendryes, 19 N. Y. 436, 439 (where Denio, J., said: "When, therefore, he directed the drawees to pay to the order of the payee, he must be intended to contemplate that whatever would be understood in New York to be the payee's order, was the thing which he intended by that expression in the bill").

74. Amsinck v. Rogers, 189 N. Y. 252, 82 NE 134, 121 AmSR 858, 12 LRANS 875, 12 Ann Cas 450.

[a] As to the drawer's liability for damages (1) this is true (Page v. Page, 24 Mo. 595; Bouldin v. Page, 24 Mo. 594; Price v. Page, 24 Mo. 65; Lennig v. Ralston, 23 Pa. 137), (2) even where the place of payment is shown by the drawee's address (Kuenzi v. Elvers, 14 La. Ann. 391, 74 AmD 434).

75. See Principal and Surety [32 Cyc 74].

governed by the laws of such state. This rule is on the theory that a contract to become a surety was complete when the instrument was signed and delivered to the payee, and it was then a contract beyond the recall of the surety, on which he in the future might become liable, when negotiated by the payee, if otherwise valid; and the place of the negotiation could not change the force or effect of his contract.76

[171] 9. Liability of Indorser before Delivery." It is necessary in this connection to distinguish between the law which governs persons who indorse before delivery and the law governing those who indorse for transfer after delivery, although it would seem that in most respects the rules governing the two kinds of indorsements are the same." The law of the place of indorsement ordinarily governs the liability of one who indorses before delivery, notwithstanding the fact that the instrument itself was executed in another state,80 or is payable in another state,s1 although as to the latter proposition there is some authority to the contrary, 82 at least as to the necessity of giving notice of non76. Union Nat. Bank v. Chapman, 169 N. Y. 538, 62 NE 672, 88 AmSR 614, 57 LRA 513 [rev 52 App. Div. 57, 64 NYS 1053].

payment to the indorser.83 However, there are sev-
eral decisions, some of which conflict with these
rules, holding that the law of the place where the
bill or the note is delivered so as to become binding
on the maker and the indorser controls, where dif-
ferent from the place of indorsement, at least if
the place of delivery and the place of payment are
the same,85 the general rule being that a contract
of an accommodation party is made in the state
where the instrument is first negotiated, so as to
become binding on him according to the law of that
state. But it has recently been held in New York
that a person who indorses a note before delivery, in
a state where he or she has no capacity to make such
a contract, is estopped to deny liability as against a
bona fide purchaser for value, instead of refusing a
recovery on the ground that the note was dated and
payable in another state where the note was negoti-
ated, and where the party had capacity to make the
indorsement.8 If the law of the place of delivery
conflicts with the law of the place of payment, the
latter governs.
[172] 10. Acceptance of Bill. The law of the
85. Carnegie Steel Co. v. Chatta-
nooga Constr. Co., (Tenn. Ch. A.) 38
SW 102.

place where the acceptance is given determines its
sufficiency in form, such as whether it must be in
writing,88 and its interpretation.89 An agreement to
accept has been held to be governed by the law
where the agreement was made, and not the law of
the place where the bill was to be accepted;90 but
the supreme court of the United States has held
that in such a case the law of the latter place
governs, on the theory that the agreement to accept
is to be entirely performed in another state,"1 and
this decision has been followed in state courts.9
The interpretation of an agreement to accept as a
contract at common law or an acceptance is gov-
erned by the law of the place of acceptance,"
93 as is
a promise by the drawee to pay a bill to be drawn,9*
or an authority to draw such bill on the writer.95

92

Liability of acceptor. The law of the place of acceptance determines in general the liability of the acceptor, but if a place of payment is expressly designated the law of that place will govern;97 and this is true where the drawee's address is indicated on the bill.98 Where the acceptance of a draft is

88. Scudder v. Union Nat. Bank, 91 U. S. 406, 23 L. ed. 245 (resident of St. Louis, acceptance in Chicago, law of Illinois governs); Garrettson v. North Atchison Bank, 47 Fed. 867 [aff 51 Fed. 168, 2 CCA 145]; Mason v. Dousay, 35 Ill. 424, 85 AmD 368; Rutland Bank v. Woodruff, 34 Vt. 89. [a] In Canada the question is settled by Bills Exch. Act (1890) § 71 (1) b, which provides that, subject to the provisions of the act, the interpretation of the acceptance is determined by the law of the place where the contract is made, that is to say, the place where the bill is accepted. "If there could be any doubt about what is included within the term 'interpretation' it is set at rest by Romer, J., in Alcock v. Smith, [1892] 1 Ch. 238." Sandet V. St. Helens Smelting Co., 39 N. S. 370, 372.

89. Sanders v. St. Helens Smelting Co., 39 N. S. 370 (under Bills Exch. Act). See also supra § 145.

90. Hubbard v.. Yorkville Exch. Bank, 72 Fed. 234, 18 CCA 525 [aff 62 Fed. 112, 10 CCA 295] (necessity for writing); Russell v. Wiggin, 21 F. Cas. No. 12,165, 2 Story 213; Scott v. Pilkington, 15 AbbPr (N. Y.) 280. 91. Hall v. Cordell, 142 U. S. 116, 12 SCt 154, 35 L. ed. 956 [aff 34 Fed. 866] (so holding as to sufficiency of parol agreement to accept).

92. Laddonia Bank v. Bright-Coy Commn. Co., 139 Mo. A. 110, 120 SW 648.

93. Barney v. Newcomb, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 46; Carnegie v. Morrison, 2 Metc. (Mass.) 381; Bissell v. Lewis, 4 Mich. 450.

94. Rutland Bank v. Woodruff, 34 Vt. 89 (holding that a parol agreement to pay a bill to be drawn, if made in a state where it is not valid as an acceptance, may be enforced as a valid contract in an action for money loaned in the place contemplated for acceptance and payment). But see Lonsdale v. Lafayette Bank, 18 Oh. 126.

95. Bissell v. Lewis, 4 Mich. 450 (place from which the authority was mailed controls the place where the draft was drawn, to determine its effect as an acceptance).

[a] On the contrary the place where the draft was drawn was held to control, to support its validity as a contract, in Anderson County Deposit Bank v. Turner-Looker Co., 3 OhS&CP 581, 2 OhNP 73.

96. U. S.-Scudder v. Union Nat. Bank, 91 U. S. 406, 23 L. ed. 245; Boyce v. Edwards, 4 Pet. 111, 7 L. ed. 799.

Conn.-Webster v. Howe Mach, Co., 54 Conn. 394, 8 A 482 (bona fide

in one state, but the draft is afterward negotiated by the drawer with the authority of the acceptor in another state, the law of the latter state governs the liability of the acceptor, notwithstanding the acceptance was expressly stated to be payable in the state where the acceptance was written, since the liability of the acceptor does not arise until the subsequent delivery of the instrument to a bona fide holder, or where notice of acceptance is given to such a holder.99

Presumptions. In the absence of any proof to the contrary, it will be presumed that a bill of exchange was accepted where dated.1

[173] 11. Transfer of Instrument—a. General Rule. In so far as the question as to what law governs the indorsement of bills and notes is concerned, it must be kept in mind that the question depends to a large extent on the particular matter relating to the indorsement which is to be determined. Generally, since the contract of indorsement is a new and independent contract, it is governed by the law of the state where it is made and takes effect;3 and character of holder and availability | 396, 13 NE 651, 3 AmSR 496; Crouch of defense); Roe v. Jerome, 18 Conn. v. Hall, 15 Ill. 263; Schuttler v. Piatt, 138 (liability for damages). 12 III. 417; Holbrook v. Vibbard, 3 Ind.-Johnson County Sav. Bank v. Ill. 465; Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co. Kramer, 42 Ind. A. 548, 86 NE 84. v. Hinsey, 88 111. A. 234.

Ky. Kelly v. Smith, 1 Metc. 313.
Mass.-Worcester Bank v. Wells, 8
Metc. 107 (letter of acceptance writ-
ten in New York to Massachusetts,
New York law governs). But see
Fiske v. Foster, 10 Metc. 597.

Eng. In re Marseilles Extension
R., etc., Co., 30 Ch. D. 598 (formal
sufficiency of the indorsements under
which the holder claims title); Bur-
rows v. Jemino, Str. 733, 93 Reprint
815.

97. U. S.-Bainbridge v. Wilcocks,
2 F. Cas. No. 755, Baldw. 536.
Mass.-Barney v. Newcomb, 9 Cush.

46.

220.

Miss.-Frazier v. Warfield, 17 Miss.
N. J. Brownell v. Freese, 35 N.
J. L. 285, 10 AmR 239.

N. Y.-Bright v. Judson, 47 Barb.
29.

2

Eng. Cooper V. Waldegrave,
Beav. 282, 17 EngCh 282, 48 Reprint
1189; Don v. Lippmann, 5 Cl. & F.
1, 7 Reprint 303, 5 ERC 930.

98. Lizardi v. Cohen, 3 Gill (Md.)
430 (recourse against drawer); Fraz-
ier v. Warfield, 17 Miss. 220. See
also supra § 155.
[a] Illustration.-Where a resi-
dent of New York city, while so-
journing in France, accepted a draft
directed to him at his address in New
York city, to be there paid, his lia-
bility on such acceptance was to be
governed by the laws of New York.
Weller v. Goslin, 32 Misc. 36, 65 NYS
232.

99. Tilden v. Blair, 21 Wall. (U.
S.) 241, 22 L. ed. 632.

1. See infra § 1301.

2. See Guernsey v. Imperial Bank, 188 Fed. 300, 110 ČCA 278, 40 LRANS 377.

3. U. S.-Musson v. Lake, 4 How. 262, 11 L. ed. 967; Slacum v. Pomery, 6 Cranch 221, 3 L. ed. 204; Guernsey v. Imperial Bank, 188 Fed. 300, 110 CCA 278, 40 LRANS 377; Burrows v. Hannegan, 4 F. Cas. No. 2,206, 1 McLean 315; Dundas v. Bowler, 8 F. Cas. No. 4,141, 3 McLean 397; McClintick v. Cummins, 15 F. Cas. No. 8,699, 3 McLean 158; Towne v. Smith, 24 F. Cas. No. 14,115, 1 Woodb. & M. 115.

Ala.-Walker v. Forbes, 25 Ala. 139,
60 AmD 498; Dunn v. Adams, 1 Ala.
527, 35 AmD 42.

Conn-Greathead V. Walton, 40
Conn. 226; Downer v. Chesebrough, 36
Conn. 39, 4 AmR 29.

Ill.-Dunnigan v. Stevens, 122 Ill.

Ind.-Patterson v. Carrell, 60 Ind. 128; Rose v. Park Bank, 20 Ind. 94, 83 AmD 306; Brown v. Bunn, 16 Ind. 406; Hunt v. Standart, 15 Ind. 33, 77 AmD 79 [overr Shanklin v. Cooper, 8 Blackf. 41]; Smith v. Blatchford, 2 Ind. 184, 52 AmD 504. Nat. Bank V. Green, 33 Iowa 140; Huse v. Hamblin, 29 Iowa 501, 4 AmR 244; Bernard v. Barry, 1 Greene 388.

Iowa.-Michigan

Ky. Weil v. Sturgus, 63 SW 602, 23 KyL 644; Hyatt v. Commonwealth Bank, 8 Bush 193; Short v. Trabue, 4 Metc. 299.

La.-Trabue v. Short, 18 La. Ann. 257; Hatch v. Gilmore, 3 La. Ann. 508.

Mass.-Roland M. Baker Co. V. Brown, 214 Mass. 196, 100 NE 1025; Williams v. Wade, 1 Metc. 82; Powers v. Lynch, 3 Mass. 77.

N. H.-Dow v. Rowell, 12 N. H. 49. N. J.-Mackintosh v. Gibbs, 79 N. J. L. 40, 43, 74 A 708 [aff 81 N. J. L. 577, 80 A 554, AnnCas1912D 163 and cit Cyc]; Freese v. Brownell, 35 N. J. L. 285, 10 AmR 239.

N. Y.-Chemical Nat. Bank v. Kellogg, 183 N. Y. 92, 75 NE 1103, 111 AmSR 717, 2 LRANS 299, 5 AnnCas 158; Spies v. National City Bank, 174 N. Y. 222, 66 NE 736, 61 LRA 193 and note [aff 68 App. Div. 70, 74 NYS 64]; Cook v. Litchfield, 9 N. Y. 279 [rev 7 NYSuper 330]; Artisans' Bank v. Park Bank, 41 Barb. 599; Heidelburger v. Heidelburger, 155 NYS 993; Aymar v. Sheldon, 12 Wend. 439, 27 AmD 137.

N. C.-Hatcher v. McMorine, 15 N.
C. 122.
Oh.-Conahan v. Smith, 2 Disn. 9.
Pa.-Lennig v. Ralston, 23 Pa. 137.
Tenn.-Douglas v. Bank of Com-
merce, 97 Tenn. 133, 36 SW 874.

W. Va.-Nichols v. Porter, 2 W.
Va. 13, 94 AmD 500.

Eng.-Trimbey v. Vignier, 1 Bing. N. Cas. 151, 27 ECL 584, 131 Reprint 1075, 6 C. & P. 25, 25 ECL 303. Que.-London, etc., Bank v. Maguire, 8 Que. Super. 358.

But see Springfield Third Nat. Bank v. National Bank of Commerce, (Tex. Civ. A.) 139 SW 665.

"The engagement of the endorser, like that of the drawer of a bill of exchange, is not a promise to pay the money at the time and place mentioned in the instrument, but an undertaking in case the money be not thus paid by him who has stipulated to pay it to indemnify the endorser

instrument will not govern the law applicable to the transfer, to the exclusion of the law of the place of contract, unless such intention is clearly manifested by the parties.12

The law of the forum is controlled by the law of the place of indorsement.13

Intention as controlling. However, the law of the place of indorsement does not govern where the intention is apparent to have the place of performance govern.14

So if there are several indorsements, each is governed by the law of the place where made, and each may have a different lex loci contractus, unless the intention is to negotiate the instrument elsewhere.11 The domicile of the parties to a transfer of the against this disappointment. When therefore a note is endorsed in a different country from that in which it was made, or the money promised to be paid, the contract of the endorser referring to the law of no other country for its performance, must be interpreted by the law of the place where the endorsement was made that law determines the nature and extent of his liability." Hatcher v. McMorine, 15 N. C. 122,

Assignment without indorsement. This general

5. Arnett v. Pinson, 108 SW 852, 33 KyL 36 (holding that the general rule that the law of the state in which an assignment is made controls as to its validity applies only where the assignor is a party, and in an action by the assignee of a note executed and payable in another state against the maker thereof, the fact that the note was assigned to plaintiff in this state would not make Tenn.-Douglas v. Bank of Comthe laws of this state controlling as merce, 97 Tenn. 133, 36 SW 874; Trato its validity). bue v. Short, 5 Coldw. 293.

[179] c. Mode and Sufficiency of. Although La.-Breedlove v. Fletcher, 7 Mart. N. H.-New York L. Ins. Co. v. McKellar, 68 N. H. 326, 44 A 516.

N. Y.-Lee v. Selleck, 33 N. Y. 615 [aff 32 Barb. 522, 20 HowPr 275]; Cook v. Litchfield, 9 N. Y. 279; Weil v. Lange, 6 Daly 549.

[a] Illustration.-Where dorsement is written on a note by the payee thereof in one state and a sale and delivery of the note are made in another state, the contract of indorsement must be regarded as made and consummated in the place where the sale and delivery occurred, rather than where it was written, and the law of the latter state as to protest and notice will control. Briggs v. Latham, 36 Kan. 255, 13 P 393, 59 AmR 546.

19. As dependent on negotiability see supra § 160.

20. De la Chaumette v. Bank of England, 2 B. & Ad. 385, 22 ECL 165, 109 Reprint 1186, 9 B. & C. 208, 17 ECL 100, 109 Reprint 78.

21. Lebel v. Tucker, L. R. 3 Q. B. 77; In re Marseilles Extension R., etc., Co., 30 Ch. D. 598; Bradlaugh v. De Rin, L. R. 5 C. P. 473 [rev L. R. 3 C. P. 538]. And see Trimbey v. Vignier, 1 Bing. N. Cas. 151, 27 ECL 584, 131 reprint 1075, 6 C. & P. 25, 25 ECL 303.

22. Roosa v. Crist, 17 Ill. 450, 65 AmD 679 (holding that, even where the law of the place of transfer does not allow the assignee to sue in his own name, he may generally do so if permitted by the lex fori); Foss v. Nutting, 14 Gray (Mass.) 484.

23. Lodge v. Phelps 1 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 139, 2 Cai. Cas. 321.

[a] Contra as to a nonnegotiable note.-Owen v. Moody, 29 Miss. 79.

24. Harper v. Butler, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 239, 7 L. ed. 410; Andrews v. Carr, 26 Miss. 577; Grace v. Hannah, 51 N. C. 94; Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N. C. 73. See also Barrett v. Gillard, 10 Tex. 69 (holding that the assignee of a nonnegotiable note from the administrator of the deceased payee may bring suit on it in his own name, if he can do so by the law of the payee's domicile). Contra Stearns V. Burnham, 5 Me. 261, 17 AmD 228; Thompson v. Wilson, 2 N. H. 291.

25. See infra §§ 666-681, 736-786, 890-904.