
    CHITTENDEN, ASSIGNEE, v. ENSIGN.
    Promissory note — condition not to sue for a time, prima facie lawful.
    A note to pay ¡pOO ant] interest in thirty days, with a proviso, that if the payer is not found within two hundred miles of ihe place of giving the note, he shall not be sued until the lapse of five years from the date, is not prima facie unlawful or restrictive of trade.
    Assumpsit upon the following note: “Warren, 21st of November, 18.32. For value received I promise to pay to D. L. Morly, or his order, the sum of two hundred dollars and interest, in thirty days from date. The condition of this note is such, that if I am not to be found in the bounds of two hundred miles of this place, the above note is not to be sued for the term of five years from date, it bearing interest from date, and afler five years it shall be valid anywhere within the United States. Wm. Ensign? Plea, non assumpsit.
    
      Knight, for the plaintiff,
    read the note in evidence, and proved that the defendant was seen here before the writ issued, and was personally served with the writ, which was issued on the 19th of March, 1833.
    
      Newton, contra, contended that the contract was invalid.
   WRIGHT, J.

The only question presented to the court is, whether the note in evidence imposes a legal obligation upon the defendant to pay. It is a note to pay |200 with interest in thirty days for value received. But there is annexed to it a conditional stipulation, that if the maker should not be found within two hundred miles of Warren, heshould not be sued short of five years. We are not told why this stipulation vitiates the contract, but are asked to take it so on the face of it. Why? Is it against law or good morals for a man to stipulate with his creditor, that in case he should be two hundred miles away from home, or the place of payment, he shall not be embarrassed by suit, but left free for five years. We do not see the • '^immorality or unlawfulness of such an'agreement. It does [722 not even restrict trade — on the contrary, it encourages it, by leaving the defendant free to trade in distant parts without molestation, though it subjects him to pay, when he returns home, or after five years, at all events. If this is an unlawful agreement, the defendant can show it to be so — at present, its unlawfulness is not manifest.

Judgment for the plaintiff.  