
    FRETWELL vs. DINSMORE.
    Oa a judgment by default, founded upon a note made in the District of Columbia, a writ of cnqttatj? was necessary to ascertain tbe rato and amount of interest*
    BRIEF OF ....—
    The note is alledged to have been made out'of the state, to wit: — in Washington, District of Columbia.
    
    In all cases where the note is made out of the state, the interest must be found by the jury. Hardin. 44, 5..
    Judgment by default— The judgment should state the rate of interest,. 2d Bibb. 223;. 101 Harper’s Bell..
    In cases on foreign contracts. — The interest is a matter of fact and as all other facts should be found by a jury. 2d Bibb. 634; Davidson vs. Gohogin.
    A note payable on demand, — The jury found the debt $200 and one-iient damages — the court gave judgment for the defendant $200,and legal interest; adjudged error unless the jury had ascertained that a demand jhad been made on that day. 2d Bibb. 471; Bartlett vs. Marshall.
    in an action on a bond given in a foreign country, (other state) the in- - teresi of that country, not of the former, to be allowed. 1 Nat. & M.. Oord. 67; Gilliard vs. Ball.
    4 John. R. 184; Faden and another, .vs. Sharp.
   OPINION OF THE COURT — by the

How. Chief Justice TURNER..

This is an action on the case on a promisory note, and the usual money . counts. The note is set forth as made in Washington, in the District of ^Columbia, for $187

A judgment, by default was taken, on which a final juedgment was1 ¡.■rendered by the court for $202 97 for damages .sustained by the non per-.iormanee.of the promises, &c.

'Theerrors, assigned, .are:— -

That damages were assigned by the court without the intervention of a jury, &c.

We are of opinion that as the contract is governed by the law of the place where it was made, that interest is given by statute, and not .by common law; that foreign laws must be proven as facts, neither the court nor its clerk, can calculate the interest in a case like this, but that a jury should have been empannelled on a writ of enquiry, to ascertain the rate and amount of interest, if any was due.

See the case of M’Cartys administrator, vs. Williams, decided in this court at the December term 1829, and the authorities cited in the brief of the appellant.

Judgment by default affirmed, and final judgment reversed, and venire de novo awarded and cause remanded.  