Harris versus Mandeville

Harris versus Mandeville. THE plaintiff and defendant were both British subjects; the debt, for which the present action was brought, had been contracted in England and the defendant, before the suit was instituted, had obtained his certificate under a commission of bankrupt issued against him in that country. Under these circumstances, Heatly obtained a rule to shew cause why an exoneretur should not be entered on the bail piece; and in support of the rule cited 4 Term. Ref. 182. Co. Bank. Law. 497. Tilghman declined opposing the rule, being of opinion, that between British subjects, the proceedings under a British commission of bankrupts must be valid and obligatory. He said, that it had been so decided by Iredell, Justice, in the Circuit Court, for the District of Massachusetts; but, at the same time, the Judge had judicially circumscribed the operation of a certificate under the Pennsylvania bankrupt law, within the limits of the State. In Grenough v. Emmory. [MAJORITY — By the Court:] By the Court: —Let the rule be made absolute.