HARRIS v. MANDEVILLE, 2 U.S. 256 (1796)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 2 U.S. 256 RSS feed for this section

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,

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.


[Footnote *] In Grenough v. Emmory.


ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman