White v. Canfield — 7 Johns. 117

Majority

p. 117

White against Canfield.

NEW-YORK,

Nov. 1810.

Headnote

a discharge “ént act^toe ¿¿au °byC°vhíuh thepemiioiihe debtor, is pro» footed from arsonment,for any «¡editor6 mimed débtór^nS°pet£ ,lnn’ p no bar to sun brought >>y any such creditor against such debtor, ¡„ Such*,¡¡¡charge |¡ie ¿vrsonlniy” 1fcal

THIS was an action of debt on a judgment in the superior court of the state of Connecticut, of February term, 1308, for 100 dollars damages, and 50 dollars and 96 cents costs.

The defendant pleaded ; 1. Mil debet; 2. Reciting the insolvent act of Connecticut, by which the insolvent may petition the supreme court, and assign over his property j and commissioners, appointed by the court, are audiorized, on his making a full and iust disclosure and as- ° J signment, to grant him a certificate, which shall operate . tl • c ‘ to protect Jus person irom arrest and imprisonment, lor any debt due to any creditor named in his petition ; the defendant averred, that being an inhabitant of Connecticuí, and owing the said judgment, he did, on the 15th of August, 1809, petition, &c. that he was adjudged insolvent, and that the commissioners appointed, did, on the 1st of September, 1809, give him a certificate, stating, that he had made the due assignment; wherefore, he prayed judgment, &c«

p. 118

- 1'^ie plaintiff replied, protesting, 1. That the plea was bad in law ; 2. That no such proceedings were had, &c. anc[ for plea said, that the cause of action, for which the judgment was rendered, arose in this .state, where both the plaintiff and defendant resided ; and that the plaintiff ever was and still is an inhabitant of this state; that he did not appear, to oppose, or consent to the proceedings under’ the insolvent act in Connecticut; nor was he party or privy thereto; and this he is ready to verify, &c,

To this plea there was a general demurrer and joinder ; and the same was submitted to- the court,, without argument.

The certificate granted to the defendant,, in Connecticut, was not a discharge from the debt, but only from imprisonment. It was, therefore, limited in its object, and. local in its effect. The- case of James v. Allen, (1 Dallas, 188.) is analogous; a discharge from imprisonment’ in New-Jersey- was held- to- be no bar to, a suit on the same demand in Pennsylvania.- It- is clearly no bar to an action here upon the judgment.

In the case of Smith v. Spinolla, ( 2 Johns. Rep. 198 .) it was decided, that though it be shown that the body of. the defendant could not be arrested in- the foreign state, yet,, if the debt be prosecuted here, the defendant must submit to the ordinary remedies, provided- for the creditor by our law. judgment must, accordingly, be far the plaintiff.

judgment for the plaintiff.