The law which governs the performance of the contract determines the lawfulness of the rate.1 Thus, a note made payable in Illinois, though signed in Tennessee, is an Illinois contract where it was to be used in Illinois.2 The rule is carried so far in some cases that where the charter of the bank forbids the charging of more than a certain rate of interest, yet upon a loan made in another state allowing a higher rate the bank may charge it.3 It would follow that a rate of interest lawful where the contract was to be performed was lawful everywhere, but some states refuse to enforce contracts that are usurious under their own laws, although such contracts might be lawful where made.4

1 Bank of Alexandria v. Mande-ville, 1 Cranch, C. C. 552; Durkie v. City Bank, 13 Wis. 216; Billingsley v. State Bank, 3 Md. 375; Lumbermen's Bank v. Bearce, 41 Me. 505: Ritenour v. Harrison, 57 Mo. 502, and the next case thereto.

2 Rock River Bank v. Sherwood, 10 Wis. 230; Grand Gulf Bank v. Archer, 8 Smedes & M. 151; Strib-bling v. Bank of Valley, 5 Rand. 132.

3 Hazen v. Union Bank, 1 Sneed, 115. This case is of doubtful authority.

4Tishimongo Sav. Inst. v. Buchanan, 60 Miss. 496; Simonton v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 498

5 Bank of United States v. Owens^

2 Pet 527: Webster v. State Bank, 4 Ark. 423.

6 Bank of Louisiana v. Stansbury, 8 La. 257; Ex. & Bkg. Co. v. Boycer

3 Rob. (La.) 307.

7 Pearce v. Bank of Mobile, 33 Ala. 693.

1 Buchanan v. Drovers' Bank, 55 Fed. R. 223? 6 U. S. App. 566.

2 See last case cited. 3 Hitchcock v. United States

Bank, 7 Ala. 386; Knox v. Bank of U. S., 26 Miss. 655; Frazier v. Wilcox, 4 Rob. (La.) 517.