HARRIS v. MANDEVILLE, 2 U.S. 256 (1796)
U.S. Supreme Court
HARRIS v. MANDEVILLE, 2 U.S. 256 (1796)
2 U.S. 256 (Dall.)
Harris
v.
Mandeville
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.
Footnotes
[Footnote *] In Grenough v. Emmory.
U.S. Supreme Court
HARRIS v. MANDEVILLE, 2 U.S. 256 (1796)
2 U.S. 256 (Dall.)
Harris
v.
Mandeville
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,
Page 2 U.S. 256, 257
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.
Footnotes
[Footnote *] In Grenough v. Emmory.
Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.
