By the law of New Hampshire, the contract, even though usury were taken or received upon it, was not void; it was so far legal, that an action might be maintained and a judgment recovered upon it, with certain deductions. Act of 12th Feb. 1791. By § 2, it is provided that when usury is relied upon, in defence, a special mode of trial may be offered by the defendant; that is, a trial by oath of the parties, as formerly practised under the law of Massachusetts, St. 1783, c. 55, but which mode of proof and form of trial are now altered in this State. By the law of New Hampshire, still in force, if the usury is thus proved, a certain amount shall be deducted, in assessing the damages, from the principal and interest due on the note. These provisions apply only to the remedy, and of course can extend only to suits brought in New Hampshire, and can have no effect when a remedy is sought under our laws. The general rule is, that those provisions of law, which determine the construction, operation and effect of a contract, are part of the contract, and follow it, and give effect to it, wherever it goes; but that in regard to remedies, the lex fori, the law of the place where the remedy is sought, must govern. We therefore cannot be governed by the law of New Hampshire, which professes only to regulate the remedy on a usurious contract.
The law of Massachusetts, though somewhat analogous, cannot apply, because, although the mode of enforcing the law against usury is by applying it to the remedy, yet the law to be enforced is the law of Massachusetts. The law of this Commonwealth declaring what shall be the rate of interest, and what contracts shall be deemed usurious, also directs, when suits are brought, what deductions shall be made; but it is suits brought on such contracts, that is, contracts made in violation of its own provisions.
Judgment for the plaintiff.