BUELBIGH V. TOWN OF EOCHESTEB. 6^3, �law, have ail been determined since these bonds were issued, and the supreme court of the United- States held that thelàw, as expounded by the supreme, court of Wisconsin in the case of Hewett v. Tovm of Grand Chute, (decid!ed in 1858,) 7 Wis, 282, operated upon the contract in that case; and, if bo,' on the same principle it operated on these bonds in this qase.: ..^ , , ' " �The statute of limitations bas been pleaded to th^e coupons attached to these bonds as another defence. That is a mat- ter clearly within the province of the state, and a statute of limitations upon an action at law becomes the law of the fed- eral court in a case heard in a state where the statute oper- ates, Amy V. Dubuque, 98 U. S. 470. This action was brought, and the summons served, on the twenty-.fifth of Augast, 1879. As alreàdy stated, these bonds were issued on the flrst of November, 1856, and were payable jon the first of November, 1876. The statutô of Wisconsin passed in 1872, re-enacted in the Eevised Code of 1878, in section 4222, declares that any action upon any bond, coupon, interest warrant, or other contract for the payment of money, whether sealed or otherwise, made or issued by any town, county, state, village, or school district in this state, shall be brought within six years. Consequently, the limitation of the statute oper- ates upon ail coupons due prior to the twenty-lifth of August, 1873, the statute declaring that a suit shall be deemed to be commenced when a summons is served on the defendant. So that the statute would not, of course, run against the bonds, they not bfeing payable until November 1, 1876, but it would ruh against ail the coupons except the last four, to-wit, those payable on the first of November, 1873, 1874, 1875, and 1876. �v.5,no.8— 43 . ����
