Case ID: johns_7/html/0116-01.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

Spencer, against Richardson.
    NEW-YORK,
    Nov. 1810 .
    
      A person in prison on execution, who has obtained his disoharg-e^under the relief of debtors, with respect to ihe smpnsonment ot their persons,” (sess. 24. e fifi ) passed the 24th of March, 1801, may, by virtue tion^of the act," act° foTn<'ivh‘g relief in cases nt insolvency, pa-.id the sth of .-iprit. ¡80S, (sess..ii.e.168) gaiil,s\0Cby action hi *tístb°dfb charged m isos, previous to the passing of the last act, which provides that he to hail, or his executípn0 on'” ¿rv judgment obtained in súch action; and such action is nq ip. fringement of tile immunity vested in him, hy virtue of his discharge under thefirsf get,
    THIS was an action of debt, on a judgment of this court, ot October, term, 1798, ror 1,000 dollars Ot debt, and 14 dollars and 96 cents costs. The defendant pleaded three pleas : 1. A discharge, an insolVent debtor, under the insolvent act, on the 5 1 23d of July, 1804; 2. That the plaintiff sued out a ca. v y x Sa. on the judgment, of October term, 1801, returnable at January term, on which the defendant was arrested the, . . „ r , . 9th ot January, 1802, and kept m custody ot the sheriff of Cayuga, until he was discharged by "the Cayuga courtyof common pleas, in May term, 1802, under the « act for the relief of debtors, with respect to the impri- . • ^ 1 f sonment of their persons;” 3. That the judgment was , , , r , „ u . rendered upon a bond for 1,000 dollars, conditioned to pay 500 dollars with interest, and that the plaintiff, in Clpril term, 1799, sued out a ji. fa. on the judgment, on w]1¡c]1 the sheriff levied the debt and damages, except 9 » - 225 dollars, of the goods and chattels of the defendant ; ’ & and this he is ready to verify, &c.
    There was a general demurrer to the second plea, ánd joinder; which was submitted to the court without ary . • . gUment. ! ,
   Per Curiam.

The act of the 31st sess. c. 163. s. 7. provides, that anv debtor, discharged under the act men-r , . , , ' ' , , , ' . - , ^ tioned m the plea, may be sued by an action oí debt; but ^ ^g not t0 he held to bail, not shall any execution issue against his body, on any judgment to be obtained in such’ action. This act cannot then be considered as invalidating the effect of' a discharge, declared in the 7th section of the act, (-sess. 24. c. 66.) mentioned in the plea. The dis-r charge there was only as to the person, and not as to the property' of the debtor; and though that act says, that (i no action of debt shall be brought upon such iudg- „ , , ° . ,. . ment, and the new act allows or such action, this is no violation of the immunity which had vested in the defendant, seeing that the new act provides, that the defendant may endorse his appearance, and that his body shall not be taken in execution. He cannot then be considered liable to imprisonment, in the new suit, and has no right to consider his privilege impaired. The new suit is only a more effectual means of arriving at the property ; and so long as the person of the debtor is not affected, the new remedy was a fair subject for legislative provision and amendment.

Judgment for the plaintiff,