Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 U.S. 151

1 L. Ed. 77

1 Dall. 151

Docket No. ____.

Hollingsworth v. Hamelin

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1785-12-01

Held: that the commonwealth was not entitled to a preference Thb defendant having absconded, a domestic attachment issued against him, at the suit of the plaintiff, and the auditors, under that process, having advertised that all persons, who had demands, should send in their accounts, in a reasonable time afterwards, made a dividend among the creditors that filed their claims.

1 counsel of record

Relies on Henderson v. Allen

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Inhabitant” · Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Optional Writ”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1785-12-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1957

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

20178517901800181018201830184018501860187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County.

¶1

The defendant having absconded, a domestic attachment issued against him at the suit of the plaintiff, and the auditors, under that process, having advertised that all persons, who had demands, should send in their accounts, in a reasonable time afterwards, made a dividend among the creditors that filed their claims. Previously to issuing the domestic attachment, the defendant was indebted to the Commonwealth for duties upon a cargo imported, and having given bond to Sharp Delany (who was the collector, but not so named in the bond,) a writ was thereupon issued against him, but was returned non est inventus. Of this, however, the auditors had no notice, till the dividend above mentioned was paid. Delany now claimed full payment. The matter was referred to the opinion of the Court upon a case stated, which was argued, at an adjourned Court, on the 11th of February 1785, by the Attorney General for the Commonwealth; Cox, Ingersol and Sergeant for the creditors.

¶2

The Court unanimously decided, that, on these facts, the Commonwealth was entitled to no preference.

/1/us/151 · .json · Public domain