Case Name: Alden Bradford and Another versus William P. Farrand
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1816-03
Citations: 12 Tyng 18
Docket Number: 
Parties: Alden Bradford and Another versus William P. Farrand.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 22–23

Head Matter:
Alden Bradford and Another versus William P. Farrand.
Where a contract was made in this State, with a citizen of this State, hy a citizen of Pennsylvania, and there was no provision that it should be performed in Pennsylvania; it was holden, that,a discharge, of the debtor, under an insolvent law of that State, was no bar to an action here, upon such contract.
Assumpsit for $264.02, the balance of an account current between the parties. The declaration also contained, besides the usual money counts, a count upon a special promise and undertaking, made at Boston on the 14th of March, 1812.
It was agreed, in a statement of facts, upon which the action was submitted to the determination of the Court, that, at the time when the supposed balance became due, namely, December 31st, 1812, the plaintiffs were, and ever since have been, citizens of JMassachusetts, residing and doing business in Boston; and that the defendant then was, and long before, and ever since, hath been, a citizen of Pennsylvania, residing and doing business in Philadelphia; — that the defendant, before the said 31st of December, 1812, became insolvent, and, pursuant to an Act of the legislature of Pennsylvania, entitled “ An Act for the relief of insolvent debtors residing in the City and County of Philadelphia, and their creditors,” made and passed on the 18th day of March, 1812, presented a petition to the commissioners of insolvents, for the said city and county, praying permission to assign all his estate and property for the benefit of his creditors, and to be discharged under said Act;—that curators were appointed, and the defendant’s property assigned to them on the 26th of November, 1812, and afterwards., on the 3d of June, 1813, to certain assignees ;—that the said commissioners have given him a certificate in the form prescribed by the ’ sixth specification of the third section of the said Act; that he has conformed in all things thereto, and was discharged by virtue of that Act from all debts, *&c., as set forth in the said specification ; — and that the plaintiffs had no notice of the said proceedings, until after the commencement of this suit, other than what they might be presumed to have had under the provisions of the said Act; and that they have neither claimed nor received any dividend of the defendant’s effects, nor done any act approving or assenting to the said assignments and proceedings.
Judgment was to be rendered upon nonsuit, or default, as the ooinion of the Court should be upon the facts so agreed.
Davis (Solicitor-General), for the plaintiffs.
Ritchie, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
It has been settled, in the preceding case of Blanchard vs. Russell, that a certificate of discharge, under an insolvent law of another State, is binding here only upon contracts made within the State which enacts the law, or which by the terms of them are to be there performed. The debt in this case must be considered to have arisen within this State ; the bargain from which it arose was made here, and it was not provided that it should be performed in Pennsylvania; although the plaintiff might have applied there for his remedy, if he had seen fit.
Defendant defaulted.
[M'Millan vs. M'Neil, 4 Wheat. 209.— Green vs. Sarmiento, Peters C. C. 75.—Le Roy vs. Crowninshield, 2 Mason, 162. — Blake vs. Williams & Trustee, 6 Pick. 286. — Ed.]