Case ID: miles_2/html/0092-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.—The", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CAREY et al v. CONRAD.
    May 6, 1837.
    
      Rule to show cause why defendant should not be discharged from arrest,
    
    A debtor discharged under the general insolvent laws of this commonwealth, is protected from arrest as to all debts incurred before his discharge, whether in this or in sister states, or to citizens of this or sister states.
    THIS was an action brought to September term, 1834. The plaintiffs declared on defendant’s note in their favour, dated at New York, August 3d, 1831, and obtained judgment. The defendant was discharged under the insolvent laws of this state, in Philadelphia, in October, 1833, returning this debt in his petition. The plaintiffs issued a capias ad satisfaciendum to March term. 1837, and the defendant moved to be discharged from arrest on the ground of his discharge. The plaintiffs had always resided in New York, and the defendant in Philadelphia.
    
      Alleson, for the rule,
    
      Jach, contra.
   Per Curiam.—The

The general insolvent laws of this commonwealth intend, that a person obtaining his discharge under them shall be protected from arrest for any debt incurred before such discharge, whether incurred in this or a sister state, or to a citizen of this or a sister state. Defendant must be discharged.

Rule absolute.