Godfrey

The Supreme Court of this State, in the case of Wild y. Van Valltenburg, decided at the last January tern, adopted the English rule that in an action against the maker of a promissory note, it is necessary for the plaintiff to aver and prove a demand at the place of payment specified in the note. In order to avoid the application of this rule to the present case, the plaintiffs have averred that by the laws of Massachusetts, where the notes were made and are payable, such a demand is not necessary. The defendant demurs, and the question presented is whether the case is to be governed by the law of the place where the contract was made and was to be performed, or by the law of the place where the action is tried.

The English Courts base their rule upon the ground that it is the legal effect of the contract that a demand shall be made at the place specified, and that such demand is a condition precedent to the liability of the promissor. The Massachusetts Courts, on the contrary, *78 hold that although the party to such a contract is not bound to pay anywhere else, yet the contract to pay at such place is unqualified and does not depend upon the condition of a demand being made.…