
    Philip Hauptman v. Arthur Nelson.
    A discharge under the insolvent law of the District of Columbia, does not affect the rights of a non-resident creditor, unless the debtor be confined at his suit at the time of the discharge, and special bail will be required notwithstanding such discharge.
    
      Mr. Hall
    
    moved the Court to permit him to appear for the defendant without bail, because the" defendant had been discharged under the insolvent law of this district since the cause of action accrued.
    ■ Mr. Brent, for the plaintiff,
    st.ated that the plaintiff was hot a resident of the District of Columbia, and was not the creditor at whose instance the defendant was confined. See the Act of May 6, 1822, entitled “An Act for the relief of certain insolvent debtors.” [3 Stat. at Large, 682.]
    
      Mr. Hall, in reply, contended that that act applied only to nonresident debtors who might be arrested and confined here. That the proviso does not extend beyond the evil intended to be remedied, which was that non-resident defendants had not the benefit of the Act of 1803. The Act of 1822 gives them the benefit, but with avproviso that the discharge shall not operate against any creditor residing out of the limits of the District of Columbia, except the creditor at whose instance the debtor may be confined.
   But the Court

(Thruston, J., absent,)

said that the proviso goes further than the case stated in the clause repealed, and ex-pvessly provides, that “no discharge under this act or the act of which it is amendatory, shall operate against any creditor residing without the limits of the District of Columbia, except the creditor at whose instance the debtor may be confined.”

The words being positive, and extensive enough to take in the present case, the Court cannot limit them so as to exclude it. The Court had before decided the point in the same way, in several cases.  