3 Binn. 201
Decided December 20, 1810
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1810-12-20
<p>RULE to shew cause why the defendant should not be discharged on common bail. °</p> <p>Upon the return of the rule, Wallace for the plaintiff produced a positive affidavit of debt upon a bill of exchange drawn by the defendant at New Orleans, where he resided, upon his correspondent in Philadelphia, in favour of the tiff who was a resident of Pittsburg.</p> <p>The defendant relied upon a discharge from his debts since the date of the bill, under a law of the territory of New Orleans, in the nature of a bankrupt law.</p> <p>if a debtor is discharged from a debt by the law of the state or territory ™ ^ted d the creditor reinfe>msylhim here, the charge himon common bail, if Jj|® debt iras”6 discharged, extends the same u°ens ^of Pessyhania¡ and g^ed thatH* does, until some tothTconirary!'</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1810-12-20
Cited by 4 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1836
2 state decisions
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 →
¶1The rule of this court has been, since the case of Millar v. Hall, to discharge on common bail, unless the state,-under which the discharge was given, refuses to extend the same courtesy to the citizens of this state. But I think it fair to presume, unless some reason is shewn to the contrary, that such courtesy is extended; and such has been the course hitherto pursued by the court, where discharges have been pleaded under the laws of our sister states.
¶2Rule absolute.