OSGOOD V. ARTT. 365 �revision and control of congress. But this fact cannot deprive the court of its power of adjudging, in a proper suit, whether the law is an inspection law at all, or -whether it is a law of another character. It results from the foregoing considerations that the demurrer ia sustained, and judgment is ordered for the defendant, with eosts. ���OsGOOD V. Aett. �{Disfy-iet Court, N. B. Illinois. January 17, 1882.) �1. Statutes of Limitation. �Where the laws of a state provide that "■when a cause of action has arisen in a siate or territory out of this state, or in a foreign country, and by the laws thereof an action cannot be maintained by reason of the lapse of time, an action thereon shall not be maintained in this state," the removal of a debtor into this state, after a residence in another state sufflciently long to avail himself of the bar of the statute of that state, will not revive the cause of action in this state. �Qrant e Swift, for plaintiff. �Edsall & Hawley, for defendant. �Blodoett, D. J. This is a suit upon a promissory note made by defendant, dated May 14, 1856, by whioh he agreed to pay the Eacine & Mississippi Eailroad Company, or order, $2,500, with interest ai the rate of 10 per cent, per annum, at the office of the Company in the city of Eacine, Wisconsin, in five years from date. �The fourth, seventh, and ninth pleas allege, in substance, under different forms of statement, that at the time of making the note, and until long after its maturity, defendant was a resident of the state of Illinois; that on the ninth of January, 1870, he removed from the state of Illinois to the state of Missouri, from which time he has continually resided in the latter state, and been at all times liable to a suit on said note in the courts of said state ; that by the laws of the state of Missouri the plaintiff's right of action on this note is barred in 10 years from the time the cause of action accrued thereon ; and that at the time the suit was commenced defendant had been for more than 10 years a resident in Missouri and liable to suit on said notes in such state ; wherefore he insists that plaintiff's right of action is barred. The demurrers filed to the seventh and ninth pleas, and to the replications to the fourth plea, raise the single question whether the facts set up in these pleas are a good bar to this action under the limitation laws of this state. ��� �
