delivered the opinion of the 'court.
The errors assigned in this case are substantially two ; First, that.the Statute of Limitation's cannot be set up by demurrer; *75 and, secondly, that the statute on which the defence is founded is unconstitutional in this, that it unjustly discriminates in favor of the.citizens of Wisconsin against the citizens of other States; for, if the plaintiff had been a citizen of Wisconsin, instead of a citizen óf New York, the statute would not have applied.
As' to the first assignment, it is undoubtedly true,' that the Statute of Limitations cannot, by the English practice, be set up by demurrer in actions at law, though it may be. in certain cases in suits in equity. And this rule obtains wherever the English practice prevails. But where the forms of proceeding have been so much altered as they have been in-Wisconsin, further inquiry must fee made.. In the first place, by the Revised-Statutes of -that. State, passed in 1858, in the title “ Of proceedings in civil actions/’.it is declared that “the distinction between actions at law and suit's -in equity, and the forms of all such- actions and suits heretofore existing, are abolished; and there shall be in this State but one form of action for the enforcement or protection of private rights and the redress of private wrongs, which'-shall be denominated'a civil action.” Rev. Stat; 714. Secondly, that “ all -the forms of pleading heretofore existing are abolished.” The act proceeds to declare that the first- pleading on the part of the plaintiff is the. complaint, which shall contain, amongst other things, “ a plain and concise statement of- the facts constituting a cause of action without unnecessary repetition'.’-’ Rev. Stat. 721. It provides that the defendant may demur, for certain causes, but that other defences must be taken by answer. Id. Amongst the grounds Of demurrer, one is, “ that the complaint. does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of actiom” In another title, — “ Of the limitation of actions,” — it is provided that “ thé objection that the action was not commenced within the time limited can' only be taken ,by- answer.” Rev. Stat. 819. But the Supreme Court of- Wisconsin has decided, that, -when on the face of the complaint itself it appears that the. statutory time , has run before the commencement of the action,, the defence inay be taken by demurrer, which, for , that purpose, is a sufficient answer.
Howell
v.
Howell,
As this is the law of Wisconsin, the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Wisconsin is bound by it;' and, as the decision in the principal case accords therewith, the first assignment of error cannot be sustained. .
The other assignment- calls in question.the constitutionality of the Statute of Limitations itself. The statute having prescribed the time within which various actions must be brought, — amongst others, that “ an action upon a judgment or decree of any court of record of any State or Terfitory'of the United States, or of any court of the United States,” must be brought within ten years, — it declares,-that “ if, when the cause of action shall accrue against any person, he shall be out of the State, such action may be commenced within the terms herein respec-' .tively limited, after-the return of said person into this State.-But the foregoing provision shall not apply to any case, where, at the time the cause of action .shall accrue, neither the party-against or in favor of whom the same shall accrue are residents of this State.” Rev. Stat. Wis. 822. This statute may be.expressed shortly thus : When the defendant is out of the State-, the Statute of Limitations shall-not run against the plaintiff, if the latter-resides in the State, but shall-, if he resides out of the State. The argument of the plaintiff is, that, as the law refuses *77 to non-residents of the State an' exemption from its provisions, which is accorded’to residents, it is repugnant to that clause of the Constitution of the United States (art.-4, sect. 2) which declares that “ the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the seyeral States.” It is contended, that, if the resident creditors of the State may sue their non-resident debtors, at any time within six or ten-years after they return to the State, non-resident creditors ought to have the same privilege; or else an unjust and .unconstitutional discrimination is made against them. This seems, at first view, somewhat plausible; but w'e, do not regard the argument as a sound one. There is, in fact, a valid reason for the discrimination. If the statute does not run as between non-resident creditors and their debtors, it might often happen that a right of action would be extinguished, perhaps for .years, in-the State where the. parties reside; and yet, if the defendant should be found in Wisconsin, — it may be only in a railroad train, — a suit cóúld be sprung upon him after the claim had been forgotten. The laws of Wisconsin would thus be used as a trap, to catch the unwary defendant, after the laws which had always governed the case had barred any recovery. This would be inequitable and unjust. Beardsley v. Southmayd, 3 N. J. L. (Green) 171.
It is also to be considered, that a personal obligation is due at the domicile of the obligee. It is the duty of the debtor to seek the creditor, and pay him his debt, at the residence of the latter:1 Not doing this, he is, guilty of laches against the law of the creditor’s domicile, as well as his own. But he evades this law by absenting himself from the jurisdiction-. As long as he does this, the Statute of Limitations of that jurisdiction ought not to run to the creditor.’s prejudice. 1 This cannot' be said with regard to the non-resident creditor. It is not the laws of Wis-. consin any more than those of China which his non-resident debtor contemns by non-payment of the debt,-and. absence from the State: it is the laws of some other State. Therefore, there is no reason why the Statute of Limitations of Wisconsin-should not run as against the non-resident creditor; at least, there is not the same reason, which exists in the'case of the resident creditor.’ If the non-resident .creditor wishes to keep his action *78 alive in other States than his own, he must reduce it to judgment, and revive that judgment from time to time. Each new judgment would create a new cause of action, and would prevent the operation of Statutes of Limitation of other States.
We are of opinion, therefore, that the law in question does, not produce any unconstitutional discrimination; and we prefer putting the case upon this broad ground, rather than to examine into the rights of the plaintiffs as .a foreign corporation doing business in Wisconsin. Judgment affirmed.