Harris Vs. Mandeville

harris v. mandeville - 2 u.s. 256 (1796) u.s. supreme court harris v. mandeville, 2 u.s. 256 (1796) 2 u.s. 256 (dall.) harris v. mandeville supreme court of pennsylvania september term, 1796 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. rep. 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, page 2 u.s. 256, 257 the judge had judicially circumscribed the operation of a certificate under the pennsylvania bankrupt law, within the limits of the state. by the court: let the rule be made absolute. footnotes [ footnote * ] in grenough v. emmory.