
    GENERAL COURT,
    OCTOBER TERM, 1800.
    M‘Kim vs. Marshall.
    n A defendant, taken in execution on a ca, sa, was discharged on his producing his release under an insolvent law of another state.
    Ca, Sa. upon a judgment rendered in this court at May term 1800. The sheriff returned the writ cepi, and brought the defendant into court, The defendant produced to the court his discharge under the insolvent law of Pennsylvania, since the cause of action accrued in this case,
    
      Bail discharged on. evidence being1 produced of the release of rhe principal under the insolvent law of another state*
    
      Winchester, for the plaintiff.
    
      Mason, for the defendant.
   The Court admitted such discharge to be legal, and the defendant was released from the execution . 
      
      
        fa) In the case of Harrison vs. Young, at May terra, 1788, n similar decision appears to have been given. In that case a non est was returned upon a ca. sa issued upon a judgment rendered in this court. The special bail of the defendant suggested to the-court, that the defendant was a citizen of the state of Pennsylvania, and had complied with the laws of that state relative to bankrupts and bankruptcies, and obtained a certificate of such conformity, and an allowance of the said certificate by the president of the said state, pursuant to the said laws; all which appeared to the court by the record of the proceedings produced.
      Harrison, Ch. J. and Goldsborough, J. decided, that the special bail in the aetion, was by such certificate discharged front his undertaking for the defendant.
      
        Ridgety, for the plaintiff..
      Martin, (Attorney General,) for the special bail,
     