Case Name: Wray v. Reily
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1808-11
Citations: 1 Cranch 513
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wray v. Reily.
Judges: CkaNch, C. J., did not sit in this cause.
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 1
Pages: 513–514

Head Matter:
Wray v. Reily.
A discharge of a debtor under the Maryland Insolvent Act of 3d January, 1800, is a bar to an action for a debt contracted in Georgia, although the creditor always resided in South Carolina.
Debt upon a judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Georgia, obtained in April, 1796.
Among other pleas, the defendant pleaded a discharge under the Insolvent Law of Maryland, passed on the 3d of January, 1800, setting forth all the proceedings, and the final discharge by the chancellor.
By the 5th section the debtor is to be “ discharged from all debts, covenants, contracts, promises, and agreements, due from, or owing, or contracted by him before the date of his deed of assignment,” upon his complying with the terms of the-act. To this plea the plaintiff replied that on the 2d of December, 1793, the plaintiff dwelt in South Carolina, and the defendant in the State of Georgia, where he made his promissory note, upon which the plaintiff recovered judgment, upon which this action is brought. That the cause of action therefore arose in Georgia. That the plaintiff never resided in Maryland, and took no benefit from the surrender of the defendant’s effects in that State.
To this replication the plaintiff demurred.
Mr. E. J. Lee, for the defendant,
contended that the discharge of a debtor, upon a fair surrender of all his effects according to the laws of the country of his domicil is, by the comity of nations, good all over the world.' That the act of the chancellor is the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, and everywhere conclusive; as in the cases of marriage and divorce. That this Court ought to decide upon the validity of this discharge in the same manner as a court of Maryland would decide; and cited the following authorities: Hunter v. Potts, 4 T. R. 192; Hughes v. Cornelius, T. Raym. 473; James v. Allen, 1 Dal. 188; Miller v. Hall, 1 Dal. 229; Thompson v. Young, Id. 294; Gorgerat v. McCarty, Id. 366; Emery v. Greenough, 3 Dal. 370; Cooke’s B. L. 34; Cooper’s B. L. addenda, 10, 27, 28; Sill v. Wors-toick, 1 H. Bl. 665; Phillips v. Hunter, 2 H. Bl. 402 ; Davis v. Marshall, in this Court, at Washington, July term, 1804. [awie,173.]
Mr. Swann, contra,
admitted that contracts may be discharged by the laws of the country wherein they were made; but con tended that they could not by the laws of any other country; and cited Cooper’s B. L. 361, tit. Oessio bonorum; Smith v. Bu-channan, 1 East, 6; 1 Dal. 188, 229, 294, 366; 2 Dal. 100, 256; 3 Dal. 369; Pedder v. McMaster, 8 T. R. 609; Vanrough v. Van Arsdaln, 3 Caines’s N. Y. Term Rep. 154; Davis et al. v. Marshall, in this Court, July term, 1804. [ante, 173.]
CkaNch, C. J., did not sit in this cause.

Opinion:
Fitzhugh, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court, that the plea of discharge under the Insolvent Act of Maryland, was a good bar to the action.