Peck v. Hozier & Mulock
New York Supreme Court
THE defendants, at Barbadoes, drew two bills of exchange on England, which were endorsed by the plaintiff, and returned protested for non-payment, to Sherman, Porter, 8r Co. of New* Haven • Mulock, being at Boston, the holders, at the request of the plaintiff, brought a suit against Mulock, as drawer, in which he was arrested and imprisoned.
Read the full summary
THE defendants, at Barbadoes, drew two bills of exchange on England, which were endorsed by the plaintiff, and returned protested for non-payment, to Sherman, Porter, 8r Co. of New* Haven • Mulock, being at Boston, the holders, at the request of the plaintiff, brought a suit against Mulock, as drawer, in which he was arrested and imprisoned. After judgment was recovered against him, execution issued, and he was discharged, in March last, from the execution, pursuant to an act of the legislature of Massachusetts, for the relief of insolvent debtors. That suit, though in the names of Sherman,…
1Per curiam
The discharge of the defendant in Massachusetts was local, and of his person only; the debt was not discharged. In Sicard v. Whale, which was a similar case, we refused to order an exoneretur on the bail piece. The plaintiff is entitled to the remedy which our laws afford, and the lex loci contractus does not. apply in such case. (Smith v. Spinolla, 1 Johns. Rep. 198.) The maxim, that no man shall be twice arrested for the same cause, is not universally true, for where the plaintiff is non prossed for want of declaring, or discontinues his suit, on payment of costs, he may arrest the…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Andrews v. HerriotNew York Supreme Court · 1825
- Le Roy v. CrowninshieldU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1820
- Belmont v. CornenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1880
- Petrie v. FitzgeraldNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1864
- Whittemore v. AdamsNew York Supreme Court · 1824
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.