Case ID: mass_25/html/0191-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Boston Type and Stereotype Foundery versus William H. Wallack.
    A certificate obtained under an insolvent law of one State, which declares the person of the insolvent to be exempted from arrest for debts contracted previously to his assignment, is no bar to an action on such a debt, commenced by arresting him, in another State.
    W, a resident in New York, made at that place a' negotiable note, in payment for goods, to an agent of a corporation established in Massachusetts, the agent also residing in New York, and W knowing the contract to be made on behalf of the corporation. W afterward assigned his property and obtained a certificate under the insolvent laws of New York, which declared his person to be exempted from arrest for debts contracted previously to his assignment. Held, that this certificate was no bar to an action brought by the corporation against W in Massachusetts, which was commenced by arresting him ; and that the certificate could not affect the judgment or form of the execution in Massachusetts.
    Whether W has any remedy for being arrested on mesne process or on execution in Massachusetts, queere.
    
    This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, and was submitted to the Court on the following statement of facts.
    On the 4th of October, 1826, the defendant, who was a resident in the city of ..New York, signed the note on which this action was brought. It was for 273 dollars 50 cents, payable in six months to the order of A. T. Freeman, a citizen of New York, and was indorsed by Freeman for the defendant’s accommodation. The note was given to James Conner, the agent of the plaintiffs in New York, for types and other articles, the property of the plaintiffs, purchased by the defendant of Conner. The purchase was made by an agent of the defendant, who knew at the time that the articles were the properly of the plaintiffs. Notes given to Conner as the plaintiffs’ agent, by persons residing in New York, were usually paid there ; but no special agreement was ever made that that should be the place of payment.
    Before the note became due, the defendant failed, and he afterward, on August 27, 1827, assigned his property for the benefit of his creditors, complied with the other provisions of the New York insolvent laws, and obtained from the recorder of the city of New York a certificate or decree, which declared the person of the defendant to be exempted from iroprisoument for debts contracted previously to the time of making his assignment. The defendant and Conner continued to reside at New York, and the note remained there until after August 27, 1827. It was afterward delivered to the plaintiffs ; who finding the defendant in Boston, he having come there for a temporary purpose, arrested him in this suit, when he gave bail.
    
      March 28th.
    
    
      April 6th.
    The plaintiffs were to be nonsuited, or the defendant defaulted, or any other disposition made of the case, according to the opinion of the Court.
    
      H. II. Fuller, for the plaintiffs.
    Peabody, for the defendant.
   Per Curiam.

The certificate pleaded goes only to the discharge of the defendant from personal arrest on account ol debts, and therefore is no bar to the action. Nor can we allow it to have any effect upon the judgment here, or upon the form of the execution. If the certificate is available in this State to protect the defendant from personal arrest, his remedy is in another form, when he shall,be arrested. 
      
       See 2 Kent, (3d ed.) 462, note a and cases cited; Story’s Comm, on Confl of Laws, 478, 480