
    The Commonwealth ex rel. Dusar against Riddle.
    
      HABEAS CORPUS to produce the body of Florimond Dusar.
    
    A foreign attachment had been instituted in the Supreme Court of the state of Delaware, returnable to April Term, 1811, by Mark Richards against Dusar, in which James Riddle became bail. On the 14th April, 1814, judgment was entered against the defendant, who was now in the custody of Riddle, upon a bail piece, dated the 29th March, 1815.
    It appeared that Dusar had been discharged on the 19th November, 1812, by the insolvent law of the state of Pennsylvania. J. R. Ingersoll therefore contended, in his behalf, that the bail was merely the gaoler of the defendant, and that as the act of assembly exempts those who have been discharged under its provisions, from imprisonment, on account of debts previously due, Riddle was not authorised to retain him in custody.
    A discharge under the insolvent law of this state protects a person from imprisonment, by virtue of a bail piece from a neighbouring] state.
    
      John Read for Riddle,
    said, that supposing this court were disposed to support an act of our own legislature against process of such a nature issuing out of the Supreme Court of another state, the question might well arise, whether the judgment obtained in Delaware, after the discharge under the insolvent laws here, was not to be considered as a new debt.'
    
   Tilghman C. J.

delivered the opinion of the court. We are not disposed to shake the practice under which arrests have been permitted in this state by virtue of bail pieces, from neighbouring states. But this practice being founded upon courtesy, it is incumbent on this court to see that it shall not be converted into ah instrument to violate our own laws. Now, here is a man, who, having been discharged by the insolvent law of Pennsylvania, is imprisoned on account of a debt previously contracted; and what strengthens the case, is, that both plaintiff and defendant are citizens of Pennsylvania, and the debt was contracted in Pennsylvaniat The question is, whether he is not to be protected from this imprisonment; and we are of opinion that he is. But we do not enter into the broad question lately decided in the Circuit Court of the United States, whether the law of this state, giving a complete discharge from the debt, be a violation of the constitution of the United States. It is sufficient for the present purpose to determine, that the person of the defendant is not subject to imprisonment. This is our opinion, and ■pf consequence we order that F. JDusar shall be set at liberty. -

Discharged.  