
    Samuel Rowland and others against John H. Stevenson.
    
    Where a person contraéis a debt in Pennsylvania, for which he is sued in this state, and, during the pendency of the suit here, goes to Pennsylvania, and, being arrested by other creditors there, takes the benefit of the insolvent laws of that state, this court will order an exoneretwr to be entered on the bail piece in the suit pending here.
    Ewing, in behalf of the defendant,
    moved that an exon■eretur should be entered on the bail piece filed in this cause. The facts of the case were admitted to be these: Samuel Rowland became indebted, in Philadelphia, to Stevenson. Upon this debt, Stevenson sued Rowland in this state. Pending these suits, Rowland was taken in custody to Philadelphia, at the suit of different persons, for a different debt, and was there discharged as an insolvent. The debt for which this action was brought was 'Contracted in Philadelphia, and Stevenson resided there at. the time it was contracted, and at the time of the discharge. The discharge ■Was in regular form, and duly certified. Bowland was a resident of New Jersey.
    
      Ewing, contended,
    that the discharge in Pennsylvania was a protection to the person of Bowland; the court would not suffer a ca. sa. to be issued against Bowland; and if it was issued and taken the court would discharge him. 1 South. 202. This position being established, the only question was, whether the exoneretur should be entered, and of that there could be no doubt.
    
      Wall admitted,
    that if the first position of the gentleman was correct the second followed of course. While the suits were pending in this, state, Bowland goes into the State of Pennsylvania, and takes the benefit of the insolvent law. It is immaterial whether voluntary or not, for it appears to me, that the suit being commenced before he went the lex fori had attached. 2 John. 198; 11 John. 195. It is the same as if the suit was commenced here, as the contract was made here. It is only to the interpellation of contracts that the lex fori applies. As to the remedies, it does not depend upon the ground of their residing in different states; wheii they come into our courts they must be governed by thé course of proceedings in our courts, viz., the lex fori. By the laws of this state, the plaintiff is entitled to hold the bail until they are discharged in the manner pointed out by our laws. Here the rights of the plaintiff had attached before Bowland went to Philadelphia to get a discharge. I find no case where the defendant has been discharged from debt in one state after a suit actually commenced for that debt in another, but there is a case in Johnson which appears to bear upon it. 7 John. 117, White v. Canfield.
    
    The discharge in one state is only the discharge of the body, and is local in its operation. It was so decided in 
      Peck v. Hozier, (14 John. 346,) where it was determined, that a person who had been arrested in another state, and discharged from imprisonment under the act of the legislature of that state, may be arrested and held to bail in New York for the same cause of action at the suit of the same plaintiff. If this principle is correct, it applies much stronger in this case, where the suit had been commenced in this state before the discharge made. The assignees in Pennsylvania could not act here; the debtor has no property in that state. It would give rise to all kinds of fraud; the creditor there could never have any redress against him.
    
      Ewing.
    
    If this application be novel, it must be because no one has thought proper to oppose it; but the principles upon which the application is made are not novel. The case in 2 John, does not apply. As to the case in 11 John. it is opposed to the decision in South, but even that does not go the length which the gentleman does. In the case in 7 John, the debt was contracted in New York, and the discharge in Connecticut. The case in 14 John, is the same thing in effect; the debt was contracted in Barbadoes, the plaintiff resided in New York, and the discharge was in Massachusetts. We are brought back fairly, then, to- the principles contained in the case of Vannuxem v. Hazelhurst. When the discharge was obtained, makes no difference, whether it was after the suit commenced or before.
    
      
      
         Note. — This case overruled in Wood v. Malin, 5 Halst. 208.
    
   By the Court.

Let there be án exoneretur entered on the bail piece.  