
    FAYETTE COUNTY,
    September Term, 1795.
    John Mullen v. Noah Ridgeway.
    1 St. L. 95. Robison vs. Bland.
    
      2 Burr. 1077. 1 Esp. 152.
    ON the trial of an action on the case, indebitatus assumsit, for work done, &c. There was evidencegiven of work done, and of the sale of a horse, in New Jersey; and also that Ridgeway, while in prison for debt, in that state, having petitioned for relief, under the insolvent law of that state, gave in a debt due by him, on an unsettled account, to John Mullen. This was in February, 1786, and the action was brought to March term, 1793. Ridgeway was discharged under the insolvent law; and, soon after, left the state of New-Jersey, and came into this country. The plaintiff continues to live in New-Jersey.
    
    
      Ross, for the defendant,
    relied on the plea of the statute of limitations, and stated that every man must recover, according to the laws of the country where he sues.
    
      Purviance, for the plaintiff,
    relied on the exception, which, he contended, applied to persons going out of the state, to reside.
   President.

It will be best to reserve this point, and let a verdict be taken for the plaintiff, subject to a nonsuit on the reserved point.

This was done. And, at a subsequent term, judgment was given for the plaintiff on the verdict, not only on the ground of the defendant having left the state, where the transactions between the parties had been; but because the defendant, on his petition for discharge by the act of insolvency, had stated himself as a debtor to the plaintiff; and because it would be hard to oblige creditors, after such discharge, to commence and renew actions every five or six years, merely to keep the debt alive, though there was no prospect of getting property of the debtor’s. It would seem proper, after an insolvency, to suspend the limitation of actions, to be brought by all creditors returned on the petition, till the debtor was notoriously to his creditors in a solvent state.  