Latapee v. Pecholier
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
A verdict having been rendered in this case, at April sessions, 1807, and a new trial awarded, the cause now came on again to be tried. The defendant being indebted to the plaintiff, in a certain sum of money, was, in September, 1804, discharged under the insolvent law of this state.
Read the full summary
A verdict having been rendered in this case, at April sessions, 1807, and a new trial awarded, the cause now came on again to be tried. The defendant being indebted to the plaintiff, in a certain sum of money, was, in September, 1804, discharged under the insolvent law of this state. The plaintiff, afterwards, arrested the defendant in the state of Delaware, for the same debt, and during his confinement under the process, he obtained from the defendant, four promissory notes for sixteen hundred dollars; for which he gave a receipt, expressing that these notes were in full of the defendant’s…
1Opinion of the Court
WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.
The objection is premature at present. We do not know what the agreement was, or whether it was executed or not. The evidence was then given.
Dallas, for defendant, contended that the plea of duress was, in this case, a complete defence against the plaintiff’s recovery on these notes. The defendant having been discharged under the insolvent laws of this state, could not be legally arrested for the same debts in Delaware.
BY THE COURT. The arrest in Delaware being legal; by the laws of that state, a court of this state could not consider it unlawful, although it would…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Dushane v. BenedictSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Leech v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
- Whitsett v. ClaytonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1880
- Frentress v. MarkleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1850
- Whitsitt v. ClaytonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1881
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.