« PreviousContinue »
6 Cow. 497 ; contra, Vanuxem v. Hazlehursts, 4 N. J. 192 ; Smith v. Mead. 3 Conn. 253; Hammett v. Anderson, 3 Conn. 304; Herring v. Selding, 2 Ark 12; Medbury v. Hopkins, 3 Conn. 472; Hinkley v. Marian, 3 Mason, 88; Ballantine v. Haight, 16 N. J. 196.
The proof of the debt, and the receiving of a dividend under proceedings in insolvency under an act which is void as against antecedent creditors, will not give validity to a discharge otherwise void. An act of the legislature which it has no constitutional right or power to pass, is a nullity, and all proceedings under it are void. The acts of individual citizens can give no force or effect to them. Kimberly v. Ely, 23 Mass. 440; Hammett v. Anderson, 3 Conn. 304; contra, Van Hook v. Whitlock, 26 Wend. 43; S. C. 7 Paige, 376.
A discharge not valid under the Constitution in the Federal courts, is equally invalid in the State courts. Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213; Frey v. Kirk, 4 G. & J. 509 ; Shaw v. Robbins, 12 Wheat. 369 n.; Cook Moffat, 5 How. 295; Poe v. Duck, 5 Md. 1; Spear v. Peabody, 10 La. Ann. 146; Fisher v. Wheeler, 5 La. Ann. 271; Beers v. Rhea, 5 Tex. 349; contra, Atwater v. Townsend, 4 Conn. 47; Smith v. Healy, 4 Conn. 49. The
power of the State over the contracts of its citizens is not limited by the power to make them parties to the proceedings in insolvency, for the insolvent law qualifies the contract from its inception. Stoddard v. Harrington, 100 Mass. 87.
If a foreign debtor removes to the State where the creditor resides, and there obtains a discharge, it will be valid against the creditor, for he is bound by the laws of his own State. Beal v. Burchstead, 64 Mass. 523.
If the indorsee and the maker of a note reside in the State at the time when the discharge is granted, the discharge will bar the debt, although the payee was a citizen of another State. Wheelock v. Leonard, 20 Penn. 440.
If both parties are citizens of the State, a discharge will be a bar to the debt, although the contract was made and was to be performed in another v State. Marsh v. Putnam, 69 Mass. 551; contra, Smith v. Mead, 3 Conn. 253.
If a citizen of the State under whose laws the discharge was granted had previously obtained a judgment in his own State, and then recovered judgment in an action in another State upon the first judgment, the discharge will release the debtor from both judgments. Brest v. Smith, 5 Biss. 62.
The discharge will bar the debt of a citizen of the same State, although it has been merged in a judgment rendered in the courts of another State. Although a judgment for some purposes is considered as a merger of the
former, and as constituting a new cause of action, yet when the essential rights of parties are influenced by the nature of the original contract, the courts will look into the judgment for the purpose of ascertaining what the nature of such original cause of action was. Betts v. Bagley, 29 Mass. 572.
If a contract was made between parties who at the time were not citizens of the State, but who became citizens of the State before the filing of the petition for a discharge, the discharge will be a bar to the debt. Hall v. Winchell, 38 Vt. 581; contra, Witt v. Follett, 2 Wend. 457.
If the contract was made in the State, and was to be performed in the State, and both parties resided there at the time the discharge was obtained, the discharge will bar an action upon the contract in the courts of another State. Both parties owe allegiance to the same laws, and by them their relations to each other are governed. Hempstead v. Reed, 6 Conn. 480: Piikin v. Thompson, 30 Mass. 64; Williams v. Guignard, 2 How. (Miss.) 722; Stone v. Tibbetts, 26 Me. 110; Hall v. Boardman, 14 N. H. 38; Wheelock v. Leonard, 20 Penn. 440; Urton v. Hunter, 2 W. Va. 83.
If the creditor is a permanent resident in the State, both at the time when the debt is created and when the discharge is granted, the discharge will be a bar to his debt, although he is an alien. Vohn Glahn v. Varrence, i Dillon, 515.
An assignment in insolvency, as against citizens of the State, will pass property situate in another State. Hoag v. Hunt, 21 N. H. 106.
A citizen of the State where the proceedings in insolvency are pending can not levy an attachment upon property in another State. Wilson v. Matthews, 32 Ala. 332; Smith v. Brown, 43 N. H. 44; Einer v. Beste, 32
A State insolvent law can not dissolve an attachment made by a citizen of the State upon the property of the debtor in another State. Upton v. Hubbard, 28 Conn. 274.
A creditor who has obtained a judgment may show that the agreement which was the foundation of the judgment was made antecedent to the passing of the statute, for the purpose of taking it out of the operation of the discharge. Wyman v. Mitchell, i Cow. 316.
When the States pass beyond their own limits and the rights of their own citizens, and act upon the rights of citizens of other States, there arises a conflict of sovereign power, and a collision with the judicial pow ers granted to the United States, which renders the exercise of such power incompatible with the rights of other States, and with the Constitution. Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223; S. c. i Cliff. 511.
Insolvent laws of one State can not discharge the contracts of citizens
of other States, because they have no extra-territorial operation, and consequently the tribunal sitting under them, unless in cases where a citizen of such other State voluntarily becomes a party to the proceeding, has no jurisdiction in the case. Baldwin v. Hale, i Wall. 223; S. C. I Cliff. 511; Newmarket Bank v. Butler, 45 N. H 236; Gilman v. Lockwood, 4 Wall. 409; Babcock v. Weston, i Gallis. 168 ; Campbell v. Claudius, 1 Pet. C. C. 484; Ballantine v. Haight, 16 N. J. 196 ; Beers v. Rhea, 5 Tex. 349 ; Choteau v. Richardson, 94 Mass. 368 ; Collins v. Rodolph, 3 Greene (Iowa), 299; Atwater v. Townsend, 4 Conn. 47; Shelton v. Wade, 14 Tex. 52; Fisher v. Wheeler, 5 La. Ann. 271; Byrd v. Badger, 1 McA. 263; Ken
Badger, 1 McA. 523; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213: Tabor v. Harwood, 5 Harring. 42; Vanuxem v. Hazlehursts, 4 N. J. 192; Whitney v. Whiting, 35 N. H. 457; Dinsmore v. Bradley, 71 Mass. 487; Ferrira v. Keevit, 18 Mo. 186; McMillan v. M'Neill, 4 Wheat. 209; Frey v. Kirk, 4 G. & J. 509 ; Clark v. Hatch, 56 Mass. 455 ; Donnelly v. Corbett, 7 N. Y. 500; Pugh v. Bussell, 2 Blackf. 366; Proctor v. Moore, 1 Mass. 139; Smith v. Smith, 2 Johns. 235; Van Raugh v. Van Arsdaln, 3 Caines, 154; Tebbetts v. Pickering, 59 Mass. 83; Potter v. Kerr, i Md. Ch. 275; Emory v. Greenough, 3 Dall. 369; Watson v. Bourne, 1o Mass. 337; Fiske v. Foster, 51 Mass 597; Palmer v. Goodwin, 32 Me. 335; Bancher v. Fisk, 33 Me. 316; Hinkley v. Marean, 3 Mason, 88; Bradford v. Farrand, 13 Mass. 18; Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 348; Woodbridge v. Wright, 3 Conn. 525; Woodhull v. Wagner, i Bald. 296; Springer v. Foster, 2 Story, 383; Cook v. Moffat, 5 How. 295; Norton v. Cook, 9 Conn. 314; Boyle v. Turner, 6 Pet. 635; contra, Hale v. Ross, 2 Penn. 590; Blanchard v. Russell, 13 Mass. 1; Adams v. Storey, 1 Paine, 79; Hicks v. Brown, 12 Johns. 142; Wray v. Reily, i Cranch C. C. 513.
The terms “ citizen of another State," " resident of another State," and “foreign creditors,” are used in different decisions quite indiscriminately. The idea designed to be expressed is not that State insolvent laws can not operate infra-territorially upon all the people or inhabitants, or permanent residents of a State, as well as upon native or naturalized citizens, but that such laws can have no extra-territorial effect so as to operate upon the rights of non-residents of the State. Vohn Glahn v. Varrence, 1 Dillon, 515; Pratt v. Chase, 44 N. Y. 597; S. C. 19 Abb. Pr. 150.
If the creditors are residents of another State, the discharge will not release the debt. Whether they are citizens of the United States or foreigners is of no importance, if they are not citizens of the State under whose laws the discharge is obtained, nor subject to its territorial jurisdiction. Pratt v. Chase, 44 N. Y. 597 ; S. C. 19 Abb. Pr. 150.
A temporary residence does not change its character with the lapse of time. Whether it is longer or shorter it is temporary still. It possesses no elements of a superior state which time will mature. Although the foreign creditor was temporarily residing in the State at the time when the contract was made, the discharge will not bar the debt if he does not reside there when the petition for a discharge is filed. Easterly v. Goodwin, 35 Conn. 279.
The question whether a contract made after the passing of a State insolvent law is released by a discharge, depends upon the citizenship of the creditor, and not upon the place where the contract was made, or was to be performed. Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223; S. C. 1 Cliff. 511; Hawley v. Hunt, 27 Iowa, 303.
The claim of a citizen of another State will not be barred by a discharge under the insolvent laws of the State, although the debt was made payable in the State. Baldwin v. Hale, i Wail. 223; S. C. 1 Cliff. 511 ; Baldwin v. Bank, 1 Wall. 234; S. C. 1 Cliff. 519; Demerritt v. Exchange Bank, 20 Law Rep. 606; Newmarket Bank v. Butler, 45 N. H. 236; Donnelly v. Corbett, 7 N. Y. 500; Riston 7. Content, 4 Wash. C. C. 476; Anderson v. Wheeler, 25 Conn. 603; Felch v. Bugbee, 48 Me. 9; Chase v. Flagg, 48 Me. 182; Norton v. Cook, 9 Conn. 314: Kelly v. Drury, 91 Mass. 27; King V. Stevenson, 2 Cliff. 1; contra, Burrall v. Rice, 71 Mass. 539; Capron v. Johnson, 71 Mass. 339, n. ; Scribner v. Fisher, 68 Mass. 43; Whitney v. Whiting, 35 N. H. 457; Bank v. Squires, 8 La. Ann. 318; Soule v. Chase, 39 N. Y. 342; S. C. i Robt. 222; nchard v. Russell, 13 Mass. I; Parkinson v. Scoville, 19 Wend. 150; Brown v. Collins, 41 N. H. 405; Smith v. Brown, 47 N. H. 44; Brighton Bank v. Merick, 11 Mich. 405.
State insolvent laws are void as against a citizen of another State, without reference to the place where the contract is made. Poe v. Duck, 5 Md. 1; Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223; S. C. i Cliff. 511; contra, Sherrill v. Hopkins, i Cow. 103; Raymond v. Merchant, 3 Cow. 147.
A debt contracted in another State with a citizen of that State, without any specific agreement as to the place where it shall be paid, will not be released by a discharge under the laws of the State where the debtor resides. Woodbridge v. Allen, 53 Mass. 470; Savoye v. Marsh, 51 Mass. 594.
A discharge under a State insolvent law will not release the debtor from a promissory note made in the State and given to a citizen of that State, but indorsed before maturity to a citizen of another State, by whom it was held at the time of the application for the benefit of the insolvent law. Braynard v. Marshall, 25 Mass. 194; Towne v. Smith, 1 W. & M. 115; Savoye v. Marsh, 51 Mass. 594 ; Anderson v. Wheeler, 25 Conn. 603; Smith v. Gardiner, 4 Bosw. 54; Ballard v. Webster, 9 Abb. Pr. 404 ; Houghton v. Maynard, 71 Mass. 552; Bancher v. Fisk, 33 Me. 316; Fessenden v. Willey, 84 Mass. 67; Eaton v. Sweetser, 84 Mass. 70, note; Felch v. Bugbie, 48 Me. 9; Chase v. Flagg, 48 Me. 182; contra, Bank v. Squires, 8 La. Ann. 318.
If the note was made between citizens of the State, and was held by a citizen of the State at the time of the application for a discharge, the discharge will bar any claim of a citizen of another State who subsequently takes it after it is overdue. Hall v. Boardman, 14 N. H. 38. If a factor at the time of making the sale states that he is acting for a
а principal who lives out of the State, a discharge will not bar the debt, although the name of the principal was not disclosed. Isley v. Merriam, 61 Mass. 242.
If the contract was not to be performed in the State, a discharge under its laws will not release the debtor from the demand of a citizen of another State. McKim v. Willis, 83 Mass. 512.
If a promissory note, payable to the order of a citizen of the State, is indorsed after maturity, but before the filing of a petition for a discharge to a citizen of another State, it will be deemed to constitute a contract with him, and will not be released by a discharge. Fessenden v. Willey, 84 Mass. 67.
A subsequent indorsement of a promissory note, if made in pursuance of authority to that effect given at the time of the sale, confers the same rights upon the holder as if it had been previously made. Fessenden v. Willey, 84 Mass. 67.
If a foreign creditor places his claim in the hands of an attorney residing in the State, for collection, who takes a note therefor payable to himself as attorney, the discharge will not bar the debt, for the courts will regard the rights of the beneficial owner. Crow v. Coons, 27 Mo. 512.
The discharge will not avail, although it is pleaded in the courts of the State under whose laws it was given. Frey v. Kirk, 4 G. & J. 509; Hicks v. Hotchkiss, 7 Johns. Ch. 297 ; Savoye v. Marsh, 51 Mass. 594; Spear v. Peabody, La. Ann. 146; contra, Penniman v. Meigs, 9 Johns. 325; Bank v. Squires, 8 La. Ann. 318; Scott v. Bogart, 14 La. Ann. 261.
The fact that the original indebtedness has been converted into a judgment in no way changes the legal rights and liabilities of the parties. A contract upon which a transitory action arises is not rendered local by a judgment rendered upon it. The character of the debt as due from citizens of one State to those of another, is not affected by the judgment, but the court will look behind the judgment to the original contract. Whitney v. Whiting, 35 N. H. 457.
The discharge will not affect a citizen of another State, although the debt, at the time the discharge was obtained, was merged in a judgment rendered in a court of the State under whose laws it was so obtained. A foreign creditor, by suing for a debt in a State court, does not adopt its insolvent laws, or thereby waive his constitutional immunity. Watson v.