Questions of the remedy to be given in an action on a contract are controlled by the law of the forum.1 The reason which underlies this rule is that while comity may require the courts of one jurisdiction to recognize substantive rights which arise under and are affected by the laws of other jurisdictions, no such principle of comity requires such courts to give remedies other or different from those which it gives in actions controlled by its own laws. Thus the law of the forum determines whether an action as against one who in consideration of a conveyance to himself has assumed a mortgage debt2 is in law or in equity. So the question whether an action on an instrument under a scroll seal should be in covenant or in assumpsit was determined by the law of the jurisdiction where the suit was brought.3 Furthermore, unless the law of the forum limits certain remedies to domestic contracts, foreign contracts are to be enforced by the same remedies as domestic contracts. Thus a contract for material, entered into in one state and to be performed by delivering it in another for use in a building, entitles the vendor to the benefit of the mechanic's lien laws of the latter state if suit is there brought.4 If a telegram is sent from a given state and suit is brought there, the law of that state is held to apply as to the measure of damages.5

5 Liverpool, etc., Co. v. Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, 454; Banco de Sono-ra v. Casualty Co., - la. - ; 95 N. W. 232; Baldwin v. Thayer. 71 N. H. 257; 93 Am. St. Rep. 510; 52 Atl. 852.

6 Baldwin v. Thayer, 71 N. H. 257; 93 Am. St. Rep. 510; 52 Atl. 852.

7 Banco de Sonora v. Casualty Co., - la. - : 95 N. W. 232.

8 Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 179 U. S. 262; In re Swift, 105 Fed. 493; Antes v. Ins. Co., 61 Neb. 55; 84 N. W. 412.

9 Seely v. Ins. Co., 72 N. H. 49; 55 Atl. 425.

1 Lamberton v. Grant. 94 Me. 508; 80 Am. St. Rep. 415; 48 Atl. 127; Young v. Hart, 101 Va. 480; 44 S E. 703.