In determining what system of law controls, it may become necessary to determine in what jurisdiction a contract is to be performed. If no place of performance is fixed by the contract the presumption is that the contract is to be performed where entered into.1 If but one place of performance is fixed by the contract, and that is fixed absolutely, the place is generally the place of performance.2 However, if the real intention of the parties is to perform the contract where made, and another place of performance is fixed in the contract in order to evade a rule of law of the former jurisdiction, the real intention of the parties determines what the place of performance is.3 This principle generally applies in contracts for usurious interest.4 If the contract is to be performed, part in one state and part in another, it has been held that the law of each place of partial performance governs such part of the performance as is to be had in that state.5 On the other hand, it has been said that if the contract is to be performed in part where made and in part elsewhere, the law of the place where it is to be made and performed in part will control unless the intention of the parties clearly appears to be otherwise.6 If the place where the contract is to be performed is optional it is said that the law of the place where the contract was made controls.7 This is true especially where the contract is in fact performed there.8 Thus an insurance company in one state issued a policy which was delivered in another state. By the terms of the policy the premium was due where the company was domiciled, but there was a provision that "at the pleasure of the company " it would appoint suitable persons to collect premiums elsewhere. Premiums were in fact paid where the policy was delivered. The contract was held to be governed by the law of the state where it was delivered and the premiums were paid.9 If the contract is payable at the main office of the lender unless another place is designated, and a place in the state of the borrower's domicile is designated, the law of such state controls as to usury.10 If no place of performance is designated it has been said that the law of the place where the contract is made controls.11

1 MacDonald v. R. R.: 71 N. H. 448; 93 Am. St. Rep. 550; 59 L. R. A. 448; 52 Atl. 982.

2MacDonald v. R. R., 71 N. H. 448; 93 Am. St. Rep. 550; 59 L. R. A. 448; 52 Atl. 982.

1 New York, etc., Co. v. Davis, 96 Md. 81; 53 Atl. 669. See Sec. 1715.

2 See Sec. 1725.

3 National, etc., Association v. Burch, 124 Mich. 57; 83 Am. St. Rep. 311; 82 N. W. 837.

4 Shannon v. Loan Association, 78 Miss. 955; 84 Am. St. Hep. 657; 57 L. R. A. 800; 30 So. 51; Washington Investment Association v. Stanley, 38 Or. 310; 84 Am. St. Rep. 793; 58 L. R. A. 816; 63 Pac. 489;

Building, etc., Association v. Griffin, 90 Tex. 480; 39 S. W. 656.

5 Liverpol, etc., Co. v. Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397.

6 Bartlett v. Collins, 109 Wis. 477; 83 Am. St. Rep. 928; 85 N. W. 703.

7 Hale v. Navigation Co., 15 Conn. 539; 39 Am. Dec. 398.

8 Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Clements. 140 U. S. 226.

9 Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Clements, 140 U. S. 226.