The general rule as to contracts is that the law of the place where the contract is entered into governs the contract, unless it was to be performed in another place, when the law of the latter place would govern.1 The remedy is controlled by the law of the locality where the remedy is sought.2 If a delicto, see Brown v. Killian, 11 Ind. 449; Buffalo Bank v. Codd, 25 N. Y. 163

11 Even though the act should be illegal as a banking transaction because absolutely forbidden by law, yet if a private banker should, as a banker, make a loan by discounting paper, or by purchasing paper at a discount, there would be no illegality in the loan itself, and hence a recovery would probably be permitted of the amount actually loaned, unless the statute provided that the loan itself should not be recovered. The same rule would apply against the banker as to deposits. As to paper deposited for collection, the effect would be not to destroy the paper; the banker would get no title. See Albert v. Bank, 2 Md. 159, which holds that a third party may set up want of title resulting in this way - a very -questionable ruling.

1 McGehee v. Powell, 8 Ala. 827.

2 Maloney v. Bruce, 94 Pa. 249; Eliot v. Himrod, 108 Pa. 569.

3 Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. 566. 1 Rosenberg v. Block, 50 N. Y. Super. Ct. 357; Jacquin v. Brisson, 11 How. Pr. 385; Hogg v. Orgill, 34 Pa. 344; Gray v. Gibson, 6 Mich. 300; Lawrence v. Batchellor, 131 Mass. 504. Contra, semble, Pennington v. Townsend, 7 Wend. 276.

2 Cases cited in preceding and next note.

contract be illegal where it is agreed to be performed or where made, if it is to be performed where made, it is illegal everywhere.3 But if it is legal under the law to be applied as governing its performance, even if prohibited where the remedy be sought, it yet seems that it would be enforced unless the citizens of the state where the remedy is sought would be injured or unless a pernicious example would be set.4 The application of these principles to prohibited private banking, or to prohibited limited partnerships or joint-stock companies for banking, would seem to be as follows: If a private banker makes a contract in a state where private banking is prohibited, and the contract is to be performed in that state, it would not be enforced in any other state; but if such a contract was to be performed in a state where private banking was legal, it would be enforced not only in any other state, but even in the state where it was made. If the contract was made to be performed in a state where private banking was illegal, it would not be enforced in any state, even in those recognizing private banking. The same considerations apply to partnerships, general or limited, and to joint-stock companies which are not corporations. But where a limited partnership or a joint-stock company is formed in a state where the formation of the same is legal, the courts of another state would apply the rules of law in force in the state where the firm was located in determining the duties, powers and liabilities of the partners under the contract of partnership or joint association. Yet if the firm was formed in one state to do business in another state, where limited partnerships or joint-stock companies were not permitted, it would become a general partnership everywhere. These results are based on the assumption that such limited partnerships or joint-stock associations are not mala in se.5

3 McAllister v. Smith, 17 I11. 328; Titus v. Scantling, 4 Blackf. 89; Rezner v. Hatch, 2 Handy, 42.

4 Greenwood v. Curtis, 6 Mass. 358

5 With the cases cited in the notes to this section it will be necessary to compare Barrows v. Downs, 9 R I 446; King v. Sarria, 69 N. Y. 32, 34; Trasher v. Everhardt,3 Gill