Smith v. Brown
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
RULE to shew cause why the defendant should not be discharged on common bail. ° Upon the return of the rule, Wallace for the plaintiff produced a positive affidavit of debt upon a bill of exchange drawn by the defendant at New Orleans, where he resided, upon his correspondent in Philadelphia, in favour of the tiff who was a resident of Pittsburg.
Read the full summary
RULE to shew cause why the defendant should not be discharged on common bail. ° Upon the return of the rule, Wallace for the plaintiff produced a positive affidavit of debt upon a bill of exchange drawn by the defendant at New Orleans, where he resided, upon his correspondent in Philadelphia, in favour of the tiff who was a resident of Pittsburg. The defendant relied upon a discharge from his debts since the date of the bill, under a law of the territory of New Orleans, in the nature of a bankrupt law. if a debtor is discharged from a debt by the law of the state or territory ™ ^ted d the…
1Opinion of the Court
Tii.ghman C. J.
The rule of this court has been, since the case of Millar v. Hall, to discharge on common bail, unless the state,-under which the discharge was given, refuses to extend the same courtesy to the citizens of this state. But I think it fair to presume, unless some reason is shewn to the contrary, that such courtesy is extended; and such has been the course hitherto pursued by the court, where discharges have been pleaded under the laws of our sister states.
2Per curiam
Rule absolute.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Andrews v. HerriotNew York Supreme Court · 1825
- Hinkley v. MareanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1822
- Campbell v. ClaudiusU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania · 1817
- Fisher v. StaytonSuperior Court of Delaware · 1840
- James v. Allen, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1786