HARRIS v. MANDEVILLE
Annotate this Case
2 U.S. 256 (1796)
- Syllabus |
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.