HART V. BABNET a SMPttf 'MXNDF'G CO. '.^49 �an acconnt agaiiist the rsiil'rcia;d compa^y and Obtained a ]udg- meni theieon in liis Iav6r^ In this ac'count li¥'ili'cludes two ^hbnsand aiid seventy^ifive dollars (f2,07S)- t)aid for cars, which are shown to be the cars in coiiti'oversy.' There is also inoluded in that aeodont an item of six thousand five huiidred dollars ($6,500} %hicli Quintard ■^as liable for tp ibe Bajldwin ^CjpcWojiiye.W^jji^B, sjip-wing that alj, of the rolling- stock was then or had been transferred to the railroad eom- �fiai^y-.;, , y, , , ■■ , ,.' ■:■■ ,,■,. '.-•. , ■ ,11,.... ' �, T,hC;plaiptiff, as rece^ver, represents in this cpuctnot only Buch jrights as tiie .attaphing creditora acquircd ,)?yitheir attaob,- ments aind suits, and had at the time of his^ftppoiatment, but also ^ny rights which any pf the parties acquired during the pendenpy of the suitsin the state court,,at least,untilriilleJBaf'• ney & Smith Manufacturing,Company,.brought,itSiSvtitinthi3 court and seized these cars, which may haye been notice tp the receiver of defendant's claim. If the railrpad company owns these cars it . is as .a hona fide pui;ohaeer, 'iiotwithstapd- ing the jiidgment for the purchase money has not been pajd; or if Quiiitard is, the owner they are subject to th^ attaph- ments against him, unless, of course, the contraet of March 13, 1877, gives the defendant a superior right. In considei-- ing which law governs this controversy we must look to the place Pf performance as contemplated by the parties 'toihe contraet, and also to the nature of the controversy. The cars' *ere delivered in Ohio;' and the cash paymerit made there, and the note was payable'ln DhiP. But the cars were delivered, to be taken tP Kentttcky and used on a railroad there, and the redelivery or reclamation of them was to be in Kentucky. The parties contemplated that part 6f 'the cbh- tract, if performed, was to be'performed in Eentuoky. The law of the pliace of performance would bo the controlling law, ordinarily, even as between the parties tP the contraet. Here the question is whether property located in Kentucky and seized there is subject to seizure, or whether a sale of this property made in Kentucky passed a valid title. We think there can be no doubt that the Kentucky law governs this ��� �
