Case ID: us_2/html/0256-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harris versus Mandeville.
    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. Ref. 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, the Judge had judicially circumscribed the operation of a certificate under the Pennsylvania bankrupt law, within the limits of the State.
    
      
       In Grenough v. Emmory.
    
   By the Court:

—Let the rule be made absolute.