Case ID: f-cas_14/html/0404-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THU COLRT", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Case No. 7,731.
    KERR v. HAMILTON.
    [1 Cranch, C. C. 546.] 
    
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    July Term, 1809.
    Discharge in Bankruptcy — Action upon Duty-Bond — Proceedings against Person op Bankrupt.
    A surety, who has paid money for a bankrupt in discharge of a duty-bond, has not the right of the United States to proceed against the person of the bankrupt, but only against his effects.
    [Cited in Hamilton v. Reynolds. 88 Ind. 193: Post v. Losey. Ill Ind. 80. 12 N. E. 124.]
    
      Assumpsit for money paid, and money bad and received. Plea, discharge under' tbe bankrupt law [of 1800 (2 Stat. 19)]. Replication, mat tbe money paid for tbe defendant [Robert ■ Hamilton] by tbe plaintiff [Alexander Kerr] was paid by bim to tbe United States in discharge of tbe defendant’s bond given for duties in wbicb the plaintiff was bis surety.
    General demurrer and joinder.
    
      
       [Reported by Hon. William Craneh. Chief Judge.]
    
   THU COLRT

(DUCKETT, Circuit Judge, absent), upon considering tbe several revenue laws and bankrupt law, decided that tbe plaintiff bad not tbe right of the United States to proceed against the person of tbe bankrupt, but only against bis' effects.

Judgment for tbe defendant