UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE

A discharge obtained under the insolvent law of one state is not a bar to an action on a note given in and payable in the same state, the party to whom the note was given having been and being of a different state, and not having proved his debt against the defendant's estate in insolvency, nor in any manner been a party to those proceedings.

This was a writ of error to the Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, the case, as appearing from an agreed statement of facts, being thus:

J. W. Baldwin a citizen of Massachusetts, made, at Boston, in that state, his promissory note, payable there, in these words:

"$2000 BOSTON, February 21, 1854"

"Six months after date, I promise to pay to the order of myself, two thousand dollars, payable in Boston, value received."

"J. W. BALDWIN"

And duly endorsed it to Hale, the plaintiff, then and afterwards a citizen of Vermont. After the date of the note, but clubjuris

Page 68 U. S. 224

before any suit was brought upon it, Baldwin upon due proceedings in the Court of Insolvency of the State of Massachusetts, obtained a certificate of discharge from his debts; the certificate embracing by its terms all contracts to be performed within the state of Massachusetts. Hale did not prove his debt, nor take any part in the proceedings.

Suit having been afterwards brought against Baldwin by Hale, the endorsee and holder of the note, and still, as originally, a citizen of Vermont, the question was whether the certificate was a bar to the action.

The court below ruled that it was not, and the correctness of the ruling was now before this Court on error. clubjuris

Page 68 U. S. 227