# James v. Allen

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
JAMES et al. verʃus ALLEN.
T
1786.
had iffued in that State againft him ; and, afterwards, in October, 1783, was difcharged by their Act of Infolvency. A rule to plead had been entered in the action brought in Pennʃylvania June Term 1783, and judgment was figned for want of a plea, at the enfuing September Term.
Bradƒord move to fet the judgment of this Court afide, or to open it, in order to admit the Defendant to plead the proceedings and difcharge in New-Jerʃey.
Upon the argument it was ftated, and agreed, that no perfon was entitled to relief under the Infolvent Law of New-Jerʃey, who was not born in that ftate, or had not refided in it one year free from arreft ; that a man indebted to any amount was entitled to the benefit of it ; that a perfon not in execution was not excluded ; that the Act requires notice to be inferted in the public papers of New-York if the debtor lives in Eaʃt Jerʃey, or in thofe of Pennʃylvania if he lives in Weʃt-Jerʃey; and that every debtor, who compiled with the terms of the Act, became thereby exprefdly difcharged from all debts due at the time of the affignment of his effects or the ufe of his creditors, or contracted for before that time and payable after, ‘‘ ʃo ƒar as regards the impriʃonment or detention oƒ his perʃon. ’’
Bradƒord and Lewis, in fupport of the motion, contended that the benefit and effect of the New-Jerʃey law ought, in the prefent cafe, to be extended to Pennʃylvania, as well by the general principle of the law of nations, as by the particular obligation arifing from the articles of confederation.
1. They obferved, that by the Law oƒ Nations, every tranfaction, not yet compleated, which has a view to its completion in a foreign country, muft be determined according to the municipal law of that country: But if perfectly compleat in the country in which it originated, the Lex Loci that decided, muft protect it in every other country where the validity of the tranfaction is called in queftion. 1 Black. Rep. 258. 2 Burr. 1078. Finch 186. 2 Show. 231. If the validity of a contract depends upon the laws of a foreign country in which it is perfected, and cannot be affected by any arguments drawn from the laws of the country where a fubfequent action is brought, certainly a judicial decifion (which, like an Act once in force, but afterwards repealed, vefts a right in the party, though its immediate operation is impeded) cannot be otherwife expounded and enforced than by the laws of the country where is is pronounced: And proceedings under the Infolvent Act amount to a judicial decifion ; for, they determine a debt, and give a remedy. Sir T. Raym. 473. They might, indeed, be faid to amount to more ; as, in giving the creditor all the advantage of the debtor's effects they become a fpecies of execution, and, therefore, may be confidered a fatisfaction. It is not fmall injuftice, when a debtor has been compelled to affign all his effects, when he has given every fatisfaction that he poffibly can, to purfue his footfteps, on every change of fituation, and commit him again and again into cuftody. If the fuit in New-Jerʃey had terminated in another manner, for ​
1786.
inftance by a verdict in favor of the Defendant, they would clearly have been a bar to the action here.
2. But, fhould the Defendant find no protection under the law of nations, the 4th Article oƒ the Confederation, effectually fupplies that defect. The article declares, that ‘‘ full faith and credit fhall ‘‘ be given in each of thefe States to the records, acts, and judicial ‘‘ proceedings, of the Courts and Magiftrates of every other State.’’ Now, if a judgment, or other judicial proceeding in New-Jerʃey had not been evidence before, this provifion (to the true fenfe of which the law of Pennʃylvania is fubfervient) would have made it fo– if it was only prima ƒacie evidence before, this would render it conclufive. What Lord Mansƒield declares in Doug. 5. to be the cafe with refpect to certain Courts in Weʃtminiʃter had (whofe decifions and proceedings are unexaminable evidence) is alfo true when applied to the feveral Court s of Juftice in the States of the American Union ; and the difcharge in New-Jerʃey may be carried about by the Defendant into each of thofe ftates, as an impenetrable fuit of armour to guard him from all future attacks upon his liberty, for a caufe of action exifting at the time it was granted.
The motion was oppofed by Coxe, Ingerʃol, and Sergeant who argued that judgments in foreign Courts were only prima ƒacit evidence, except in Courts of Admiralty, whofe decrees were conclufive, becaufe founded upon the law of nations, which is common to all the world ; that as a judgment without fatisfaction could not bar an action for the fame debt in another country, 3 Atk. 598. much lefs would the proceedings under the Act in queftion, which did not extinguifh, or even alter the debt ; but only difcharged the perfons of the debtor from arreft within the State of New-Jerʃey from their creditors in New-York and Pennʃylvania; to the inhabitants of which ftates, the citizens of New-Jerʃey (owing to their having no fea-port, and paving an intereft of 7 per Cent. for money) were conftantly indebted ; fo that the extention of the Act did not deferve to be favored here. That in the cafe of Lopez, in the Court of Appeals, and in the caufe between Connecticut and Pennʃylvania, depofitions taken in Connecticut, according to one of their ftatutes, were not admitted to be read, becaufe contrary to the common law. That the payment of intereft for money lent, was the only inftance regulated by foreign laws. That a certified Engliʃh bankrupt, was liable to arreft in Ireland. That, even if validity of a foreign proceeding is admitted, a right to examine the ground, upon which it was founded remain ; and, therefore, that it might be proved, that he Defendant was not entitled to the benefit of the Act ; as he was not a native of New-Jerʃey, nor had be refided there one year previous to the arreft. That, upon the whole, it would be extremely hard, after the creditors on the fpot, who having joined in the petition according to the directions of the Act, had fhared the fpols ; an abfent creditor, who never of the difcharge, fhould be barred. ​
1786
SHIPPEN, Preʃident.— This is a motion, in effect, to difcharge the Defendant from execution, on the ground of his having been confined by a Ca. Sa. for the fame Debt in the State of New-Jerʃey, and there difcharged as an infolvent Debtor, by virtue of an Act of Affembly of that State : And the queftion is,whether the difcharge of his perfon from imprifonment there, will intitle him to a like difcharge here ?
It is contended, that the decifions of even foreign Courts of Juftice, fhall have a binding force here ; and that in the fituation in which we ftand with regard to New-Jerʃey, a Sifter State, we are under an additional obligation to pay refpect to the decifions of the Courts there, by the terms of the Articles of Confederation.
The Judgment of a foreign Court eftablifhing a demand againft a Defendant, or difcharging him from it, according to the laws of that country, would certainly have a binding force here: And not only the decifions of Courts, but even the Laws of foreign countries, where no fuits have been inftituted , would in fome cafes be taken notice of here ; where fuch laws are explanatory of the contracts, and appear to have been in the contemplation of the parties at the time of making them ; as if the intereft of money fhould be higher in a foreign country where the contract was made, than in that where the fuit was brought, the foreign intereft fhall be recovered, as being underftood to be part of the contract was made, than in that where the fuit was brought, the foreign intereft fhall be recovered, as being underftood to be part of the contract. But it does not follow that every order of a foreign Court with refpect to the imprifonment of the Defendant's perfon, or any local laws of that country, with regard to his releafe from confinement, can have the effect of reftraining us from proceeding according to our own laws here. The infolvent law of New-Jerʃey relates not to the fubftance of the Plaintiff's demand, which had already been eftablifhed, but merely authorizes the Court to make an order, on certain terms, fro the difcharge of the Defendant's perfon from imprifonment ; which order has no connection with the merits of the caufe, and cannot with any property be called the judgment of the Court in that action ; and the law itfelf on which the order was founded, is a private act, made for that particular purpofe ; it is local in its nature, and local in its terms.
Infolvent laws fubfift in every State in the Union, and are probably all different from each other ; fome of them require perfonal notice to be given to the creditors, others do not, as in the prefent cafe ; and they have never been confidered as bindng out of the limits of the State that made them. Even the Bankrupt Laws of England, while we were the fubjects of that contrary, were never fuppofed to extend here, fo as to exempt the perfons of the Bankrupts from being arrefted.
The Articles of Confederation, which direct that full faith and credit fhall be given in one State to the Records, Acts, and judicial proceedings, of the others, will not admit of the conftruction contended for, otherwife executions might iffue in one State upon ​
1786.
the judgments given in another ; but feem chiefly intended to oblige each State to receive the records of another as full evidence of fuch Acts and judicial proceedings.
Whatever might have been the effect of an order or judgment of the Court of New-Jerʃey, if it had actually difcharged the Defendant from the Plaintiff's demand, the prefent order, as well as the Act of Affembly on which it is founded, is local in its terms, and goes no further than to difcharge him from his imprifonment in the Gaol oƒ Eʃʃex Country in the State oƒ New-Jerʃey; which, if the falleft obedience were paid to it, could not authorize a fubfequent difcharge from imprifonment, in another Gaol, in another State.
The motion is, therefore, not granted.