Majority
p. 305Thompson v. Young. attempted to establish this distinction, that in Millar v. Mall, the defendant was a citizen of Maryland, and that the money, for which the action was brought, had been received in Baltimore; but that in this case, Young, though sometimes in Maryland, was in fact, a citizen of Pennsylvania, and that the debt was contracted here. They acknowledged, however, after the examination of the witnesses, that they had failed in their proof; and therefore, no argument was made in support of the distinction,[1]
Syllabus
Insolvency.Effect .of a discharge under the insolvent law of another state. Millar v. Hall, ante, p. 229, re-affirmed.
Sergeant and Ingersoll, for the plaintiff,
On a rule to show cause why an exoneretur should not be entered on the bail-piece, it appeared, that the defendant was a resident of Maryland (though he came occasionally to Philadelphia upon business), and was duly discharged under the insolvent law of that state. Upon the authority of Millar v. Mall, ante, 229, the rule was made absolute.