¶1— I concur with Mr. Justice Lewis, in the opinion, that it is not necessary that the cause of action should be set forth on the record of the judgment, in order to entitle the plaintiff to treat the case as being out of the Act of 1842, abolishing imprisonment for debt, and for the reasons which he has given. But I do not consider the opposition which Wills made to the proceedings, which were intended to imprison him under that act, as' an absolute estoppel. He then asserted, that he was liable to a ca. sa. The court thinking his argument well founded, discharged him from arrest. When the ca. sa. was issued, he denied that he was liable to it. I have no doubt, that if the last statement was true, it ought to have prevailed. Imprisonment cannot be based upon a mere fiction of law, *64which forbids a man to show the truth. Nevertheless, I think the refusal to set aside the execution was right enough, and well founded on the facts of the case. His declaration that he was liable to it, was one fact of some importance, but not conclusive.
2 Grant 60
Wills v. Kane
Decided October 12, 1853
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1853-10-12
This is a writ of error to a ca. sa., issued on the judgment in the case immediately before reported. Dec. 20, 1852. On affidavit of M. Kane, Jr.,'alleging that the said John A. Wills had property which he fraudulently concealed from his creditors; and also that he had money or evidences of debt, which he unjustly refused to apply to the payment of the said Kane’s judgment, a bench-warrant was issued for his arrest, by Judge Williams.
Decided 1853-10-12