
    Anthony M‘Candlish against Nicholas Cruger.
    Charleston District,
    1802.
    Where a mau draws a b'd* of upon hio: eifj no daiuagts are recovera ble ; it is liV anoteoflr!,**J when lie accents it. Where a contract is made, and to be pei-formed in a foreign country, the lex loci must govern it. íhi' where it i> made in a foi eign counlri* and to be * er formed in Carolina, the laws of Caro-tina must K* the true ruk
    CASE on a bill of exchange drawn by the defendant on himself. Verdict for plaintiff. Motion for a nev? trial.
    This was an action upon a bill of exchange drawn by the defendant, in the island of St. Croix, on himself, payable in Charleston, and accepted by the defendant. After the arrival of the defendant in Charleston, the bill was presented to him for payment, but not being duly honoured, it was protested for non-payment; and the question on the trial was, whether there should be any, and what, interest and damages allowed on this bill.
    The jury who tried the .cause allowed one per cent, interest a month, the legal interest of St. Croix, and ten per cent„ damages ; the same that are allowed on inland bills of exchange protested in South Carolina. The present was therefore a motion for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against law, and the usage and custom of merchants.
    
      Ford and Gaillard, in support of the motion,
    contended, that the interest of twelve per cent, per annum, allowed by the jury, was usurious, as the lawful interest of South Carolina was only seven per cent. That it is very evident, from the nature of the bill and acceptance, that the contract was’ to be performed in Carolina; consequently, the law of tlfs ' country ought to govern this contract. Burr. 1077, 1078. It may well be compared to a note of hand, by which one man promises to pay another a sum of money, and if he fails to do it, he is only accountable for common interest. That as to damages, our act of assembly has made no provision for a man’s drawing on himself. The provisions in the act, relate to third persons in whose favour a bill is drawn, or to whom it was negotiated. It allows ten per cent, damages (exclusive of interest) for the disappointment the drawee or endorsee sustains by the failure of payment. But no sort of provision is made for a case like the present one, so much out of the common line of business,
    Turnbull, against the motion, in reply,
    admitted that if this' had been a Carolina transaction originally, it should have been governed by the laws of Carolina ; but as it was a foreign transaction in the island of St. Croix, it should be governed by the laws of that island. The debt was due there, and the money ought to have been paid there. But as the defendant had not money there, the plaintiff was prevailed upon to accept a draft on South Carolina, for the accommodation of the defendant. He therefore insisted, , that under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the law of the country where this contract was made, and not where the money was to be paid, ought to be the rule by which it ought to be governed, He adverted to the case in 2 Burr. 1097. where Lord Mansfield admits, that there are many cases where the law of the place of the transaction should be the true rule ; and so it ought in the present case under consideration. This, he said, was a mercantile question, and should be construed liberally in favour of the right of the plaintiff, who had indulged his debtor, by accepting a draft instead of insisting on his money at St. Croix. He said, the defendant would have been liable for the whole if he had been sued in St. Croix, the place where the contract was entered into; and if so, then on every principle of justice, he should be placed on the same footing as if the matter was to be determined at the place where» the transaction took place, by the laws of the island.
    
      Same point determined in , the ease of IVinihrop v. Pcpoon et al* JBaifs Hep* vol. 1. p« 468* Riley’s edit*
   The Judges after considering this case, observed, that there were some contracts, over which the lex loci where the contract was made should be the governing rule j and others again, where the laws of another country should decide the matter in question. That in all cases where the contract is to be periormed in the country where it is made, the lex loci should be the rule of decision ; but whenever the contract is made with a view of its being performed in another country, then the law of the place where the performance is to be made, should he the true rule.

Sir John Bland’s case, referred to in 2 Burr. 10. 77. is strong in point. That there above principles are recognised by all the judges ; that where a contract was made in France, to be performed in' England, there the contract should be governed by the law of England. So in the present case, Cruger drew the bill in question in the island of St. Croix upon himself, payable in Carolina; the performance or payment was to be made here, and Cruger never could be called upon in any foreign country abroad, till there had been a default of payment here. All former contracts were done away by this new contract, and the court cannot take notice of any other, as no other is now before it.

On the subject of interest and damages, the court was of opinion, that there was no law to warrant the jury in finding them ; because, the contract being to be performed here, the laws of Carolina must regulate the transaction ; and they are silent on the subject of damages, where a man draws upon himself; and with regard to interest, no more than seven per cent, can be recovered from the time of the demand.. This contract, therefore, may well be assimilated (as was urged in the argument) to a note of hand to pay money on demand, and interest in case of non-payment is only recoverable from that day.

Rule for new trial made absolute.

All the Judges present.  