Argument for Plaintiff in Error. 198 U. S. Pursuant to the terms of the offer, the last act which changed the offer of Meyer into a contract between him and the defendant; that is, the acceptance of the offer, was the issuance of the certificate and no other act, matter or thing was necessary after such acceptance was evidenced in this record to create the obligation of contract on the part of the defendant, and the one party being bound by the contract, it of necessity follows that the other party was likewise bound by the contract. The acceptance of this offer, which was the act of the creation of the contract between the parties, took place at Chicago, by the execution of the certificate of membership. Nothing remained to be done. The contract had arisen, and the acceptance which made up a contract, took place in Illinois, and it is, therefore, an Illinois contract, and the lex loci celebrationis applies. 22 Ency. of Law, 2d ed., 1324; Bascom v. Zediker, 48 Nebraska, 380; Waldron v. Ritchings, 9 Abb. Pr. N. S. 359; Armstrong v. Best, 112 N. Car. 59; Equitable Life Society v. Clements, 140 U. S. 226; Carrollton v. Am. Credit Co., 124 Fed. Rep. 25; Shelton v. Haxtun, 91 N. Y. 124; McIntyre v. Parks, 3 Metc. 207; Milliken v. Pratt, 125 Massachusetts, 374; Gay v. Rainey, 89 Illinois, 221; Buchanan v. Drovers' Bank, 55 Fed. Rep. 223; Western T. & C. Co. v. Kilderhouse, 87 N. Y. 430; Merchant v. Chapman, 4 Allen, 362; Sands v. Smith, 1 Nebraska, 108; Hosford v. Nichols, 1 Paige's Ch. 220; Jewell v. Wright, 30 N. Y. 264; Merchants' Bank v. Griswold, 72 N. Y. 480; Dickinson v. Edwards, 77 N. Y. 576. The contract is an Illinois contract, made with reference to the laws of that State, and the evidence rejected at the trial is admissible without the waiver and the waiver is entirely effective and the exceptions to its rejection must be sustained. Where (as in the case at bar) a proposal is made by a person residing in the State of New York, to a corporation having its residence in the State of Illinois, and is in Illinois accepted, the place of acceptance and not the place of proposal is the place of the contract, and is in all respects and for all purposes 198 U.S. Argument for Plaintiff in Error. an Illinois contract. Farmers' Sav. Co. v. Bazore, 67 Arkansas, 252; Zeltner v. Irwin, 25 App. Div. N. Y. 228; Baum v. Birchall, 150 Pa. St. 164. And where, by the terms of the offer, it is not to become a contract until accepted, the place of acceptance is the place of the contract. It will be presumed that the contract is to be performed at the place where it is made (i. e., Chicago, Illinois), and is to be governed by the law of Illinois, unless there is something in the terms of the contract, or in the explanatory circumstances of its execution inconsistent with that intention. Toledo Bank v. Shaw, 61 N. Y. 294; Liverpool &c. Steam Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 448; Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U. S. 124; Lloyd v. Guibert, L. R. 1 Q. B. 115; Lewis v. Headley, 36 Illinois, 433; Smith v. Mead, 3 Connecticut, 353; DeSobry v. De Laistre, 3 Am. Dec. 535; Tillinghast v. Boston Lumber Co., 39 S. Car. 484; Fisher v. Otis, 3 Pin. (Wis.) 78; Hilliard v. Outlaw, 92 N. Car. 266; Kittle v. Delamater, 3 Nebraska, 325; Young v. Harris, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 447; Hyatt v. State Bank, 8 Bush. 193; Philadelphia Loan Co. v. Towner, 13 Connecticut, 357. The contracts rest on like obligations. The rates are the same to all. Should it have to pay in suicide cases more than the stipulated amount in New York, and only the covenanted sum in Illinois, the burdens are unequally placed and equity has not been done. The interpretation of the contract, and of the rights and obligations of the parties thereto, are regulated by the law prevailing at the place of performance, and how much more is this true when the place of performance is the place of execution. St. Nicholas Bank v. State Nat. Bank, 128 N. Y. 26; Jewell v. Wright, 30 N. Y. 259; Dickinson v. Edwards, 58 How. Pr. 24; Scudder v. Union Nat. Bank, 91 U. S. 406; Cox v. United States, 6 Pet. 172; Morris v. East Side Car Co., 104 Fed. Rep. 409; Sandham v. Grounds, 94 Fed. Rep. 83; Martin v. Roberts, 36 Fed. Rep. 217; Don v. Lippmann, 5 Cl. & F. 1; Argument for Plaintiff in Error. 198 U. S. Ferguson v. Fyffe, 8 Cl. & F. 121; Shoe &c. Nat. Bank v. Wood, 142 Massachusetts, 563; Akers v. Demond, 103 Massachusetts, 323; Brown v. Camden &c. R. Co., 83 Pa. St. 316; First Nat. Bank v. Hall, 150 Pa. St. 466; Fitzsimons v. Guanahani Co., 16 S. Car. 192; Robinson v. Queen, 87 Tennessee, 445; Cartwright v. New York &c. R. Co., 59 Vermont, 675; Hanrick v. Andrews, 9 Port (Ala.), 9; Belmont v. Cornen, 48 Connecticut, 342; Vermont State Bank v. Porter, 5 Day (Conn.), 322; Herschfeld v. Dexel, 12 Georgia, 582; Greenwald v. Freese, 34 Pac. Rep. 73; Guignon v. Union Trust Co., 156 Illinois, 135; Lowy v. Andrews, 20 Ill. App. 521; Abt v. Trust Co., 159 Illinois, 467; Peoples' Bldg. Assn. v. Fowble, 17 Utah, 122; Stevens v. Gregg, 89 Kentucky, 461; Boyd v. Ellis, 11 Iowa, 97; Arnold v. Potter, 22 Iowa, 194; Alexandria &c. R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 61 Kansas, 417; Capryn v. Adams, 28 Maryland, 529; Marburg v. Marburg, 26 Maryland, 8; Jordan v. Fitz, 63 N. H. 227; Whitney v. Whiting, 35 N. H. 462; Thayer v. Elliott, 16 N. H. 102; Dyer v. Hunt, 5 N. H. 401; Knox v. Gerhausen, 3 Montana, 275; Shacklett v. Polk, 51 Mississippi, 378; Hart v. Livermore Foundry Co., 72 Mississippi, 809; Reg. v. Ogilvie, 6 Can. Exch. 21. The last essential act to complete the contract was the acceptance of the application, and, as this was done, and could only be done by the terms of the offer contained in the application, by the board of control, at Chicago, Illinois, it is in that place, under all the authorities, that the contract arose. An executory (bilateral) contract is within the protection. of the non-impairment clause. 15 Ency. of Law, 2d ed., 1033, 1039, n. 8. As to what is the obligation which the plaintiff in error claims that $834, N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. impairs see Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 197; McCracken v. Hayward, 2 How. 608.· Tested by an examination of the Illinois decisions or by the common law of Illinois which is the same as that of New York the evidence excluded was admissible under the contract. 198 U. S. Argument for Defendant in Error. Communications from a patient to his physician were not privileged at common law. 23 Ency. of Law, 83; Edington v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 77 N. Y. 564; People v. Stout, 3 Park Crim. Rep. 670; Kendall v. Grey, 2 Hilton, 300; Rex v. Gibbons, 1 C. & P. 97; Brown v. Carter, 9 L. C. Jur. 163; Duchess of Kingston's Case, 20 How. St. Trials, 572; Broad v. Pitt, 3 C. & P. 518; Wheeler v. Le Marchant, 17 Ch. D. 675; Goddard v. Gardner, 28 Connecticut 172; Springer v. Byram, 137 Indiana, 15; Winters v. Winters, 102 Iowa, 53; Barnes v. Harris, 7 Cush. 577; Campau v. North, 39 Michigan, 606; Territory v. Corbett, 3 Montana, 50; Steagald v. State, 22 Tex. App. 464; Boyles v. N. W. Mut. Relief Assn., 95 Wisconsin, 312; In re Breuendl, 102 Wisconsin, 45. California, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have enacted statutes which affect the admissibility as evidence of communications made to a physician; but no such statute has been enacted in Illinois. A Federal question having been made and this cause being properly in this court under the writ of error allowed herein, the entire record is to be examined, and if reversible error has been committed, the judgment must be reversed. Burton v. United States, 196 U. S. 283; Horner v. United States, 140 U. S. 570, 576; act of March 3, 1891, § 5; § 709, Rev. Stat. Mr. Otto H. Droege, with whom Mr. J. Lawrence Friedmann was on the brief, for defendant in error: The contract in question was executed in New York and subsequent to the enactment of the statute of that State, which, it is claimed, impairs the obligation of the contract in question. This finding of fact of the highest court of the State of New York upon this question is conclusive upon this court. W. U. Tel. Co. v. Gottlieb, 190 U. S. 412, 422; Dowe v. Richards, 151 U. S. 658. The policy fully bears out the construction placed upon it by the Court of Appeals. VOL. CXCVIII-33 Argument for Defendant in Error. 198 U. S. The policy was signed by the officers of the association at Chicago on September 20, and was accepted by the assured September 28, 1894, in New York. The last act in connection with this contract was performed at New York and the policy did not become effective until the first premium had been paid, and as that was to be paid in New York, where assured resided, therefore, the place of payment is the place of contract. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Clements, 140 U. S. 226; Russell v. Prudential Life Ins. Co., 176 N. Y. 178; Millard v. Brayton, 177 Massachusetts, 533. The place of performance of the contract under the policy is necessarily in New York, the residence of the wife of the assured. Bottomley v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 170 Massachusetts, 274. As the contract sued upon in this case was made subsequent to the enactment of the statute in question the non-impairment clause of the Constitution has no application. Code Civ. Pro. of N. Y. §§ 834, 836; Holden v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 165 N. Y. 13. The non-impairment clause of the Constitution prohibits a State from enacting a law which will impair the obligation of an existing contract. This clause was not intended to prohibit a State from enacting a law prohibiting certain contracts in the future. It was intended as a protection to existing contracts only. Denney v. Bennett, 128 U. S. 489; Brown v. Smart, 145 U. S. 454. A law in force at the time of making a contract does not impair its obligation. Ohio v. McClure, 10 Wall. 511; Churchman v. Martin, 54 Indiana, 380; Savings Bank v. Tripp, 13 R. I. 621; Lehigh Water Co. v. Easton, 121 U. S. 388. Assuming that the contract was made in Illinois upon an action brought in this State, the rules of evidence of the forum in which the action is brought govern. Nor. Pac. R. R. Co. v. Babcock, 154 U. S. 190; Miller v. Brenham, 68 N. Y. 82; Scudder v. National Bank, 1 Otto, 406; Clarke v. Lake Shore Co., 94 N. Y. 218; Sturgess v. Vanderbilt, 73 N. Y. 384. The rules of evidence adopted in New York govern in a case |