Case ID: scl_3/html/0402-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
    CHARLESTON,
    MAY, 1804.
    Sinclair v. Smyth.
    A discharge under the bankrupt law of 1800 is a bar to an action upon a previously existing demand; and if the certificate were allowed by a competent authority, the State courts cannot Jnquire whether the allowance was in strict conformity to1 the Act of Congress.-
    This was a summary process, tried in Charleston, in May, 1803:, before Bay, J. who decreed for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of this court upon the question, whether the defendant, against whom a commission of bankruptcy bad been sued out, after the cause of action in this case had accrued, under the act. of congress, of 1800, was intiiled to a discharge from the demand, and protected from the action of the plaintiff in this case, under the circumstances of the case. It appeared, that a certificate signed by Thomas Cummings and William Poe, on the 26th of April, 1802, in Georgia, was produced, which certified to William Stephens, Federal Judge for Georgia district, that they, being a majority of the commissiouers named in the case of the defendant, under the bankrupt law of congress, had proceeded to carry into effect t-ie commission to them directed and that the bankrupt had made a discovery on oath, &c.; and that to them there appeared no reason to doubt the truth of such discovery, &c. There was,also,a writing subjoined to this certificate,signed by Judge Stephens,m these words : viz. “ The usual notice having been given in the Augusta lierald, and none of the creditors of the within Thomas Smyth having shewn any cause to the contrary, I do allow and confirm this certificate. Savannah, 29th May, 1802.” It was contended on the part of the plaintiff, that the bankrupt’s certificate had not been properly and regularly allowed, according to law. See Coop, B. L. 350. 1 Atk. 77. Act oí Congress, of 1800, § 36 and § 52.
    . Bailey, for plaintiff. Gaillard, for defendant.
   The court

were of opinion, that as it appeared that the bankrupt’s certificate had been allowed by competent authority, whether the allowance thereof was in strict conformity to the act of-congress or not, was not examinable in this court, as it has no controlling power over the federal courts.

Decision reversed.

Present, Grimke, Johnson, Trezevant, and Brevard, Justices ; Bay, J. absent.