Case Name: The State of Maryland, for the Use of Charcella Shipley, v. Elias Shipley, impleaded with Ezekiel Shipley and Peter Shipley
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1835-12
Citations: 7 Ohio 246
Docket Number: 
Parties: *The State of Maryland, for the Use of Charcella Shipley, v. Elias Shipley, impleaded with Ezekiel Shipley and Peter Shipley.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 7
Pages: 248–250

Head Matter:
*The State of Maryland, for the Use of Charcella Shipley, v. Elias Shipley, impleaded with Ezekiel Shipley and Peter Shipley.
To an action of debt on an executor’s bond, executed'in the State of Maryland, the statute of limitations of that state is a good plea in bar in Ohio. If the act has began to run in Maryland, it continues to run in Ohio.
This cause was reserved in the county of Knox.
The action is on a bond executed by the defendants on December 6, a. D. 1817, at Baltimore, in the State of Maryland. The penalty is three thousand dollars. It was executed by the two first-named defendants as principals, and by the last as security, and was conditioned for the faithful discharge of the duties of the principals, as executors of the last will and testament of Charles Shipley, deceased.
It is averred in the declaration, that at Baltimore, on January 1, 1818, to wit: at Mount Yernon, etc., two thousand dollars came to the hands of the said executors, as assets of the estate to be distributed ; that the said Charcella, for whose use the suit is brought, is the widow of the testator, and entitled by will to five hundred dollars, which was adjudged to her, on settlement, by the orphans’ court of Baltimore county, on January 10, 1820; that she has often requested the .executors to pay the same, and assigns "the nonpayment as a breach of the condition of the bond.
The defendant, Elias Shipley, pleaded specially, in bar of the action, the statute of limitations of Maryland, passed at a session of. the general assembly of that then province, commenced on July 10, and ended on August 8, 1729, entitled “ an additional and supplementary act t.o th.e several acts for the administration of justice in-testamentary affairs,” and still in force; By this statute, it is enacted, inter alia, that all actions upon administration and testamentary bonds shall be commenced within twelve years after the passing of the said bond, and not after.
The plea avers that all the parties to this suit, at the execution and passing of this bond, resided in the State of Maryland, and that the action was not commenced within twelve years next thereafter. To this plea, there is a general demurrer and joinder.

Opinion:
Opinion of the court, by
Judge Wood :
For all the purposes connected with our inquiry, the facts set up in the plea are admitted by the demurrer. Is the plea *a bar to the action? At the execution of the bond, all the parties to it, and to this suit, resided in the State of Maryland, and the statute began to run the moment the bond was delivered. The terms of the act-can not be misunderstood. The action is limited to twelve-years after the bond shall be executed and passed. The time when the cause of action accrued is wholly immaterial. Nothing ig shown to except this case from the operation of the general rule, that when a statute of limitation once commences, it continues to run ; and as it commenced on December 6, 1817, and no action was commenced for more than twelve years next thereafter, we are of the opinion the right to sue in the State of Maryland is barred, as shown by the plea.
One question remains. If the action is barred in Maryland, does-it continue barred if a suit be instituted in Ohio? In the interpretation of a contract, we are governed by the lex loci; in enforcing it, by the lex fori; and the statute of limitations of the state where the suit, is brought, it is settled, is the only one which can be pleaded in bar of the suit. Without the aid of the statute of Ohio, the plea of the statute of Maryland could not be sustained. The statute of Ohio, however, provides (vol. xxix, 315, sec. 4), " That in all actions founded on contract, either express or implied, made between persons residing without this state at the time such contract was made, and which are, or hereafter may be, barred by .the laws of the state, country, or territory where made, shall be and continue barred when brought in any court of this state."
If the action is barred in Maryland, as we have already seen, .the statute of Ohio permits the statute of limitations there to be plead in bar here. The demurrer to the plea must be overruled.