HARRIS v. MANDEVILLEAnnotate this Case
2 U.S. 256 (1796)
U.S. Supreme Court
HARRIS v. MANDEVILLE, 2 U.S. 256 (1796)
2 U.S. 256 (Dall.)
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
September Term, 1796
The plaintiff and defendant were both British subjects; the debt, for which the present action was brought, had been contracted in England; and the defendant, before the suit was instituted, had obtained his certificate under a commission of bankrupt issued against him in that country.
Under these circumstances, Heatly obtained a rule to shew cause why an exoneretur should not be entered on the bail piece; and in support of the rule cited 4 Term. Rep. 182. Co. Bank. Law. 497.
Tilghman declined opposing the rule, being of opinion, that between British subjects, the proceedings under a British commission of bankrupts must be valid and obligatory. He said, that it had been so decided by Iredell, Justice, in the Circuit Court, for the District of Massachusetts;* but, at the same time,
the Judge had judicially circumscribed the operation of a certificate under the Pennsylvania bankrupt law, within the limits of the State.
By the Court: Let the rule be made absolute.
[Footnote *] In Grenough v. Emmory.
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.