
    Bank of Alexandria v. Edward and Francis C. Dyer.
    The county of Alexandria in the District of Columbia, is not beyond seas, as to the county of Washington in the same district.
    Assumpsit for money had and received by the defendants to the plaintiff’s use. The defendants pleaded non-assumpsit, and the statute of limitations of Maryland, (1715, c. 23.)
    
      The plaintiffs replied, that at the time of making the promise- “ they were in the county of Alexandria in the District of Columbia, beyond the seas, and so in the county of Alexandria, beyond the seas, remained and continued until the day of the impetration of the original writ aforesaid, to wit, at Washington county aforesaid ; and this they are ready to verify,” &c.
    To this replication the defendants demurred.
    
      Mr. R. S. Coxe, for the plaintiffs.
    Alexandria county and Washington county, are governed by different laws; as much so as Virginia and Maryland. This point has always been so decided by this Court, in the removal of slaves from one county to the other. When two places are under different sovereignties, they are beyond seas as to each other.
    The laws of Alexandria and Washington are derived from different sovereignties; and those laws are specially continued in force in the respective counties, by the Act of Congress of the 27th of February, 1801, [2 Stat. at Large, 103.] Shelby v. Guy, 11 Wheat. 361.
    
      Mr. W. L. Brent, contra.
    
    The savings in the statute do not apply to a bank; such as non-age, coverture, and imprisonment. A bank has no residence. The replication merely says that the plaintiffs were in Alexandria county when the promise was made.
    
      Mr. Bradley, on the same side. The judicial jurisdiction of the two counties is the same; and by the Act of Congress of the 24th of June, 1812, § 5, [2 Stat. at Large, 755,] executions may be served, in either county. Scotland is not beyond seas in respect to England. Byles on Limitation, 193 : LeRoy v. Crowninshield, 2 Mason, 151.
    
      Mr. Coxe, in reply. If this case had happened before the 27th of February, 1801, the replication would have been good. The Act of Congress of that date continues the laws of the two counties as they were before ; if so, the plaintiffs have the same rights as if the jurisdiction had not been changed. If the replication was good before 1801, it is good now. It is no objection that the bank cannot have the benefit of all the exceptions of the statute ; and it is no reason that the bank cannot have the benefit of some, because it cannot have the benefit of all. A corporation has a residence, a commorancy. United States v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 392. The lex fori is the rule. If it depend upon the jurisdiction of the country, “ beyond seas” could not be pleaded in any of the circuit courts of the United States, when the plaintiff resided in a different State. Upon a cession of territory, the laws remain until changed by the new sovereign.
   The Court

(Morsell, J.,

contrd,) sustained the demurrer; being of opinion that the replication was insufficient.  