TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sicard v. Whale

Sicard against Whale

Sicard v. Whale, 11 Johns. 194 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1814)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
May 15, 1814
Judges
Thompson
Citations
11 Johns. 194
Cited by 10
Headnotes
Where the creditor and his debtor reside in another state, and the debtor there obtains his discharge under the insolvent law of that state, and is afterwards arrested, a.t the suit of the Creditor 3 in this state, for the same debt, this court will not discharge the defendantfrom the arrest, on filing common "bail, nor order an exoneretur to be enter» d on the hail piece.
Summary
FAY, for the defendant, moved that an exoneretur be entered on the bail piece filed in this cause. It appeared that the debt for which the present suit was brought, was contracted in the state of Pennsylvania, where the parties were at that time resident, and that the defendant, on the 27th March, 1812, obtained a discharge under the insolvent laws of that state, from imprisonment, and from all liability of his person, for any debts, before that time contracted. The plaintiff was, at the time of the defendant’s obtaining his discharge, and still is, resident in Pennsylvania.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Thompson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Thompson, Ch. J.

It is impossible to distinguish this case from that of Smith v. Spinolla. That case was decided on a sound principle, that if a foreign creditor pursues his debtor here, he is entitled to the remedy provided by our own laws. We look oniy to the course of proceedings established in our own courts. The lex loci contractus is not applicable on this motion. When the cause comes to issue, and the discharge is pleaded, it will be time enough to consider of its effect.

Per Curiam.

Motion denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1820–1821: 11822–1823: 11824–1825: 21828–1829: 21836–1837: 11880–1881: 11886–1887: 11888–1889: 118202026peak 1824 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Andrews v. Herriot4 Cow. 508 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1825)
  2. Le Roy v. Crowninshield15 F. Cas. 362 (1820)
  3. Whittemore v. Adams2 Cow. 626 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1824)
  4. Belmont v. Cornen48 Conn. 338 (1880)
  5. Hochstadter v. Hays11 Colo. 118 (1887)
  6. Stern v. Schlesinger5 N.Y.S. 1 (1889)

Most recent

  1. Stern v. Schlesinger5 N.Y.S. 1 (1889)
  2. Hochstadter v. Hays11 Colo. 118 (1887)
  3. Belmont v. Cornen48 Conn. 338 (1880)
  4. Mount v. Bradford2 Miles 17 (1836)
  5. Wood v. Malin10 N.J.L. 208 (1828)
  6. Wood v. Malin10 N.J.L. 247 (1828)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list