
    White against Canfield.
    NEW-YORK,
    Nov. 1810.
    a discharge “ént act^toe ¿¿au °byC°vhíuh thepemiioiihe debtor, is pro» footed from arsonment,for any «¡editor6 mimed débtór^nS°pet£ ,lnn’ p no bar to sun brought >>y any such creditor against such debtor, ¡„ Such*,¡¡¡charge |¡ie ¿vrsonlniy” 1fcal
    
    THIS was an action of debt on a judgment in the superior court of the state of Connecticut, of February term, 1308, for 100 dollars damages, and 50 dollars and 96 cents costs.
    The defendant pleaded ; 1. Mil debet; 2. Reciting the insolvent act of Connecticut, by which the insolvent may petition the supreme court, and assign over his property j and commissioners, appointed by the court, are audiorized, on his making a full and iust disclosure and as- ° J signment, to grant him a certificate, which shall operate . tl • c ‘ to protect Jus person irom arrest and imprisonment, lor any debt due to any creditor named in his petition ; the defendant averred, that being an inhabitant of Connecticuí, and owing the said judgment, he did, on the 15th of August, 1809, petition, &c. that he was adjudged insolvent, and that the commissioners appointed, did, on the 1st of September, 1809, give him a certificate, stating, that he had made the due assignment; wherefore, he prayed judgment, &c«
    
      - 1'^ie plaintiff replied, protesting, 1. That the plea was bad in law ; 2. That no such proceedings were had, &c. anc[ for plea said, that the cause of action, for which the judgment was rendered, arose in this .state, where both the plaintiff and defendant resided ; and that the plaintiff ever was and still is an inhabitant of this state; that he did not appear, to oppose, or consent to the proceedings under’ the insolvent act in Connecticut; nor was he party or privy thereto; and this he is ready to verify, &c,
    To this plea there was a general demurrer and joinder ; and the same was submitted to- the court,, without argument.
   Per Curiam.

The certificate granted to the defendant,, in Connecticut, was not a discharge from the debt, but only from imprisonment. It was, therefore, limited in its object, and. local in its effect. The- case of James v. Allen, (1 Dallas, 188.) is analogous; a discharge from imprisonment’ in New-Jersey- was held- to- be no bar to, a suit on the same demand in Pennsylvania.- It- is clearly no bar to an action here upon the judgment.

In the case of Smith v. Spinolla, (2 Johns. Rep. 198.) it was decided, that though it be shown that the body of. the defendant could not be arrested in- the foreign state, yet,, if the debt be prosecuted here, the defendant must submit to the ordinary remedies, provided- for the creditor by our law. judgment must, accordingly, be far the plaintiff.

judgment for the plaintiff.  