2 H. & J. 193, 221, 225; 17 III. 338; 16 Tex. 844; 2 Burr. 1077; 2 Kent 458; Story, Confi. Laws § 243. See 88 Fed. Rep. 800; 42 Ch. D. (C. A.) 321; but see 112 N. C. 59; but Dicey, Confi. Laws 500, is of opinion that this rule, though sound in principle, does not rest, in England, upon an unassailable foundation of authority. An exception is said to exist in case of contracts made in violation of the revenue laws; Cas. t. Hardw. 85; 2C. Rob. 6; 2 Cr. M. & R. 311; 2 Kent 458. A contract legal by the lex loci will be so everywhere; 18 La. Ann. 117; 146 Ill. 528; unless- It is injurious to public rights or morals; 2 C. & P. 847; 1 B. & P. 340; 6 Mass. 379; 2 H. & J. 193; or contravenes the policy; 28 Ark. 533; 60 Ala. 380; 2 Sim. Ch. 194; 16 Johns. 488; 5 Harring. 31; 1 Green, Ch. 826; 17 Ga. 253. See 82 Ga. 142; 112 N. C. 59; or violates a positive law of the lex fori; or, in England, violates any English rule of procedure; Dicey, Confi. Laws 542. The application of the lex loci is a matter of comity; and that law must, in all cases, yield to the positive law of the place of seeking the remedy; 18 Pick. 198; 1 Green, Ch. 326; 12 Barb. 631; 17 Miss. 247. See 10 Ν. Υ. 58. It is held generally that the claims of citizens are to be preferred to those of foreigners. Assignments, under the in- solvent laws of a foreign state, are often held inoperative as against claims of a citizen of the state, in regard to personal property in the jurisdiction of the lex fori; 1 Green, Ch. 326; 5 Harring. 31; 82 Miss. 246; 13 La. Ann. 280; 21 Barb. 198; but see 12 Md. 54. But there appears to be a distinc- tion. This rule is well settled in all cases where the assignment of the property of an insolvent is made, in invitum, by a court in a foreign jurisdiction, to a receiver, as- signee, etc.; 6 Thomp. Corp. § 7388; 14 Allen 855; 123 Ind. 477; 81 Cal. 551. But where a voluntary assignment is made, if good where made and made in conformity with the law where the property is situated, it is valid in the latter state, ex proprio vigore; 117 Pa. 30; 10 Mo. App. 7; 6 Thomp. Corp. § 7347; Story, Confi. L. § 111. A contract made with a view to violate the law at the place of performance is in- valid; 14 R. I. 398; 62 Ind. 587. An im- moral contract, e. g. to bribe or corruptly influence the officers of a foreign govern- ment, will not be enforced wherever made; 108 U. S. 261; or one that violates good morals; 42 Miss. 444; 37 N. J. L. 23; but Sunday laws are not considered as rules of positive morality: 07 Miss. 405; nor, ordi- narily, are usury laws; 103 Mass. 323; 77 N. Y. 578. See Moore's note to Dicey, Confl. Laws 582. It was said, in a case of usury, that if a contract is valid by the law of the state where it is made, and is not immoral, the courts of another state will enforce it, although its own laws pro- hibit such a contract; 31 Fed. Rep. 516. In an action in Pennsylvania on a prom- issory note governed as to the contract by the law of New Jersey, the question of whether parol evidence will be admitted to vary the contract must depend upon the law of New Jersey, and not upon the lex fori. It was said that the right to intro- duce proof dehors the instrument for the purpose of showing what, in fact, the con- tract was, is an essential part of the contract itself, and not a mere incident to the rem- edy; 6 Pa. Super, Ct. 115, citing 110 Pa. 478; 148 Pa. 146; and 154 Mass. 218. A statute requiring a foreign corporation, as a condition of doing business within the state, to stipulate not to remove suits into the federal court, is void because it makes the right to a permit dependent on the surrender by the foreign corporation of a privilege secured to it by the constitution and laws of the United States; 121 U. S. 186; 20 Wall. 445. See JURISDICTION. The interpretation of contracts is to be governed by the law of the country where the contract was made; 2 B. & Ad. 746; 10 B. & C. 908; 2 Hagg. Cons. 60, 61; 8 Pet. 861; 30 Ala. N. S. 253; 4 McLean 540; 2 Bla. Com. 141; Story, Confi. Laws § 270.