¶1ON a rule to shew cause why an Exoneretur should not be entered on the Bail-piece, it appeared, that the Defendant was a resident of Maryland (though he came occasionally to Philadelphia upon business) and was duly discharged under the insolvent law of that State. Upon the authority of Millar versus Hall, ant. 229. the rule was made absolute.
1 Dall. 294
Thompson v. Young
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided June 15, 1788
Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1788-06-15
attempted to establish this distinction, that, in Millar versus Hall, the Defendant was a citizen, of Maryland, and that the money, for which the action was brought, had been received in Baltimore; but that in this case, Young, though sometimes in Maryland, was, in fact, a citizen of Pennsylvania, and that the debt was contracted here.
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1828
3 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1788-06-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →