
    Thomas S. Byrne versus Richard Crowninshield.
    The statute of limitations of another state, in which the contract was made, is no good bar to an action here upon a promissory note, although all the parties resided in, and were citizens of such other state, at the time the contract was made.
    Assumpsit by the endorsee against the maker of sundry promissory notes, dated at New York, on the 29th day of March, 1811.
    The defendant pleads the statute of limitations of the state of New York, in bar; and avers that, at the time when the supposed cause of action accrued to the plaintiff, the parties resided in and were citizens of that state, and that the cause of action accrued, if at all, within the said state.
    To this plea the plaintiff demurs, and the defendant joins in demurrer.
    
      Nichols, for the plaintiff,
    cited and relied on the case of Pearsall 8f Al. vs. Dwight &f Al. 
      , as decisive of the question arising in the present action. [ * 56 ] * Cummings, for the defendant. I am to distinguish this case from the one cited for the plaintiffs; and it will be found to differ in one essential fact. In that case, the defendants were citizens and residents in Massachusetts, nor does it appear that they were ever within the state of New York. In the case at bar, the parties were all citizens of and residents in New York, at the time of making the contract, and long after. If this Court will ever recognize a statute of limitations enacted by another state, they will give effect to the one pleaded in this case.
    
      Nichols, in reply. The Court considered the parties in Pearsall Al. vs. Dwight Al. as inhabitants of New York, and the contract as made there .
    
      
       2 Mass. Rep 84.
    
    
      
       See 1 Caines, 402.—2 Johns. 198.—3 Johns. 267.
    
   By the Court.

The case cited by the plaintiff’s counsel from our own reports, is decisive of this action. The principle has often been recognized, that the laws of the country where the contract is made, are to govern its construction; those of the country where the remedy is sought, are to prescribe that remedy.

A difference has been attempted to be shown in this case, from that of Pearsall & Al. vs. Dwight, & Al. in that both the parties to this action were inhabitants of New York at the time when the contract was made, and the cause of action accrued. But that fact was assumed in the case referred to. The difference then does not exist .

Defendant's plea bad. 
      
      
        [Bulger vs. Roche, 11 Pick. 36.—Le Roy vs. Crowninshield, 2 Mason, 151.— Williams vs. Jones 13 East. 439.—Wilson vs. Appleton, post, 180.—Ed.]
     