Case Name: Wright against Paton, who is impleaded with Jenney
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1813-08
Citations: 10 Johns. 300
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wright against Paton, who is impleaded with Jenney.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 304–306

Head Matter:
Wright against Paton, who is impleaded with Jenney.
ALBANY,
August, 1813.
The act of the relief of intf^in thetiít ?'?t0(cong T sess. i.c. i84.) which5 athe°f courts of the several states are not bound unías?"se?6’ din* byorIea0 much of it, at able the court whethevldthe discharge is warranted by the provisions
is future remedy against the person; and the creditor ¿nay still proebcute his demand to judgment, in order to charge the after acquired property of the owner.
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained the usual money counts. The defendant pleaded, 1. Non as-sump sit; 2. Non assumpsit infra sex annos; 3. That after the mald"S the promises, &c. and before the exhibition of the plaintiff’s declaration, to wit, on the 26th November, 1806, the defendant became an insolvent debtor, within the true intent and meaning of the act of congress of the United States, entitled “ An act for the relief of insolvent debtors, in the district, of Columbiato wit, at y , Alexandria, within the said district, Sec. and being insolvent at, &c. presented his petition to the honourable Nicholas Fiizhugh,one °f assistant judges of the circuit court of the United Stales, for the district of Columbia, setting forth, Sec. And such proceedings were thereupon had, pursuant to the said act, that the said judge, on the 10th December, 1806, at, Sec. granted a discharge of foe defendant, whereby he was discharged from the payment of the several demands mentioned in the plaintiff’s declaration, and from all debts, Sec.
To the third plea the plaintiff replied, protesting that the promises, Sec. were made after the discharge of the defendant; that in . . and by the said act, it is among other things, provided that any property which the debtor might acquire after his discharge, except the necessary wearing apparel and bedding of his family, &c. should be liable to the payment of his debts; and that in and by the said act, it was also, among other things, enacted, that no dig-charge of an insolvent debtor under the said act, should have a greater effect in any particular state than if such debtor had been discharged under the insolvent debtor law of any other state, as in and by the said act, among other things, may fully appear. And further, that the several promises in the plaintiff’s declaration were made, and the causes in the said declaration stated, arose within the state of New-York, and not elsewhere, and this he is ready to verify, See. wherefore, &c. The defendant rejoined to this replication, not acknowledging, &c. and protesting, Src. that the defendant has not since his discharge, &c. acquired any property which is liable to the payment of the demands in the plaintiff’s declaration mentioned, and this he is ready to verify, &c. wherefore, Sec. To .this rejoinder there was a demurrer and joinder in demurrer.
Robinson and Harison, for the plaintiff.
Graham and Colden, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The third plea is bad in substance. The a££ of congress relative to insolvent debtors within the district of Columbia, ought to have been specially set forth in the plea; for, as respects the union at large, it is a private act, of which the courts in the several states are not bound to take notice unless it be shown to them by pleading. It ought to have been recited in the plea, er so much of it as to enable the court to judge whether the discharge was made in conformity to it, and was well warranted by its provisions. If the rule were otherwise, and we were to take notice of the act as a public law of the United States, it would appear that the discharge affords no plea in bar of the action. It is only a bar to any future remedy against the person, and the after acquired property is still liable to the payment of debts, and the creditor in every such case must still be entitled to establish his demand by suit and by judgment. Nor does the plea give jurisdiction to the judge by whom the discharge was granted, for the act only applied to persons in actual confinement in gaol in the district of Columbia, at the suit of a creditor, when the petition is presented to the judge, and the plea contains no averment of thaf fact.
Without examining, then, the other points raised by the subsequent pleadings, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment upon the demurrer.
By a subsequent act, passed the 21st April, 1806, the provisions of the former act -were extended to any debtor who may have been, or thereafter should be, arrested and held to bail in the said district, and who, at the time of the arrest, shall have been a resident in the district for one year next preceding his arrest. (Cong. 9. sess. l. c. 36. s. 2.)