Sicard v. Whale
New York Supreme Court
FAY, for the defendant, moved that an exoneretur be entered on the bail piece filed in this cause. It appeared that the debt for which the present suit was brought, was contracted in the state of Pennsylvania, where the parties were at that time resident, and that the defendant, on the 27th March, 1812, obtained a discharge under the insolvent laws of that state, from imprisonment, and from all liability of his person, for any debts, before that time contracted.
Read the full summary
FAY, for the defendant, moved that an exoneretur be entered on the bail piece filed in this cause. It appeared that the debt for which the present suit was brought, was contracted in the state of Pennsylvania, where the parties were at that time resident, and that the defendant, on the 27th March, 1812, obtained a discharge under the insolvent laws of that state, from imprisonment, and from all liability of his person, for any debts, before that time contracted. The plaintiff was, at the time of the defendant’s obtaining his discharge, and still is, resident in Pennsylvania.
1Opinion of the Court
Thompson, Ch. J.
It is impossible to distinguish this case from that of Smith v. Spinolla. That case was decided on a sound principle, that if a foreign creditor pursues his debtor here, he is entitled to the remedy provided by our own laws. We look oniy to the course of proceedings established in our own courts. The lex loci contractus is not applicable on this motion. When the cause comes to issue, and the discharge is pleaded, it will be time enough to consider of its effect.
2Per curiam
Motion denied.
3Cited by10 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
- Whittemore v. AdamsNew York Supreme Court · 1824
- Hochstadter v. HaysSupreme Court of Colorado · 1887
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.