Joseph Beers, William Booth and Isaac St John, Plaintiffs In Error v. Richard Haughton

• Citation: 9 L.Ed. 145,34 U.S. 329,9 Pet. 329
• Parties: JOSEPH D. BEERS, WILLIAM L. BOOTH AND ISAAC R. ST JOHN, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR v. RICHARD HAUGHTON
• Decision Date: 01 January 1835
• Court: United States Supreme Court

34 U.S. 329

9 Pet. 329

9 L.Ed. 145

JOSEPH D. BEERS, WILLIAM L. BOOTH AND ISAAC R. ST JOHN, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR v. RICHARD HAUGHTON.

January Term, 1835

[Syllabus from pages 329-331 intentionally omitted] ERROR to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Ohio.

On the 14th of June 1830, the plaintiffs, citizens and residents of the state of New York, commenced their action of assumpsit in the United States circuit court, for the district of Ohio, against Joseph Harris and Cornelius V. Harris, of the state of Ohio, and recovered judgment against them at the December term 1830, for 2846 dollars and 56 cents.

In this action against the Harris's, the present defendant, Haughton, became their special bail.

On the 12th day of October 1831, a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum was issued against the Harris's, and returned to the December term of that year 'not found.'

On the 24th day of December 1832, the plaintiffs commenced their present action against Haughton upon his recognizance of bail, returnable to the 1st day of May, then next. A declaration was filed in the usual form, to which the defendant filed several pleas, and among others, the following, designated in the record as the 8th, (the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th being withdrawn) to wit:

'And the said defendant, for further plea in this behalf, says,' (actio non) 'because, he says, that by the tenth rule of practice of this court, established and adopted by this court, at its December term 1831, which said rule has ever since been and now is in full force and effect, it is provided that if a defendant upon a capias does not give sufficient appearance bail, he shall be committed to prison, to remain until discharged by due course of law. But under neither mesne nor final process, shall any individual be kept imprisoned, who under the insolvent law of the state, has, for such demand, been released from imprisonment. And the said defendant avers, that after the said debt became due, upon which the said judgment in the said declaration mentioned is founded, to wit, in February term in the year 1831, the said Cornelius V. Harris being returned to the court of common pleas, for Hamilton county, and state of Ohio, by the commissioner of insolvents of Hamilton county, and state of Ohio, as a resident of said county and state for more than two years next preceding, as an applicant for the benefit of the act entitled an act for the relief of insolvent debtors, and having also returned a schedule in writing, delivered to said commissioner by said Cornelius V. Harris, of all debts by him owing, among which the said debt in the judgment in the said plaintiff's declaration mentioned is founded, is named, did, at said February term of said court, personally appear before the judges of said court in open court, and the said court then and there having full jurisdiction of such matters and such applications for relief, did then and there, at the term last aforesaid, order and adjudge that the said Cornelius V. Harris should for ever after be protected from arrest or imprisonment for any civil action or debt or demand in the said schedule of his debts, so delivered to the said commissioner of insolvents for Hamilton county, which said order and judgment of said court is now in full force and virtue and unreversed.^(a)

'And the said defendant further avers, that afterwards, to wit: in the term of February, in the year 1832, the commissioner of insolvents in and for Hamilton county, in the state of Ohio, returned the said Joseph Harris to the court of common pleas of said county, as a petitioner for the benefit of an act passed by the legislature of the state of Ohio, entitled 'an act for the relief of insolvent debtors,' who at the time of his application was under arrest, and returned to said court a schedule delivered to him by the said Joseph Harris, showing the debts by him owing, and the names of his creditors, among which debts was the said judgment mentioned in the said plaintiff's declaration, and the said Joseph Harris afterwards, in the term of February, in the year 1832, appeared in said court of common pleas, before the judges thereof, and filed his petition in said court, praying for the benefit of the act for the relief of insolvent debtors, and such other proceedings were had thereon, that the said court at the term last aforesaid, ordered and adjudged that the said Joseph Harris be discharged from arrest on account of the debts in said schedule mentioned, in pursuance of the statute in such case made and provided; which said order and judgment is now in full force and virtue, and unreversed. All which the said defendant is ready to verify; wherefore, he prays judgment if the said plaintiffs ought further to have and maintain their aforesaid action thereof against him,' &c.

To this plea the plaintiffs filed a general demurrer, in which the defendant joined. The circuit court overruled the demurrer, and gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiffs sued out this writ of error.

The case was submitted to the court on printed arguments, by Mr Elisha W. Chester, Mr D. J. Caswell, and Mr Henry Star, for the plaintiffs in error; and by Mr Charles Fox, for the defendant.

For the plaintiffs in error, it was argued:

The insolvent law of Ohio makes it the duty of the court of common pleas of each county to appoint an officer, denominated the commissioner of insolvents, and any person being arrested upon civil process, either mesne or final, may require the arresting officer to take him before such commissioner, and upon making out a schedule of all the debts which he owes, and also of all his property, and assigning the same to the commissioner, for the benefit of his creditors, the commissioner gives him a certificate, which has the effect to release him from the present arrest, and from arrest for any of the debts contained in his schedule, until the same be acted upon by the court of common pleas of the county, where the arrest is made. This discharge, however, can only be given upon his making oath that he has no other property than that contained in his schedule, &c. He may be examined under oath touching his property by the commissioner or any creditor. These proceedings are to be certified into the court of common pleas of the county, where the discharge is either consummated or the application dismissed. A person not under arrest, who has resided for a certain period in the state and county, may, by a like proceeding, exempt his person from arrest.

The question presented for the consideration of the court, is, whether the facts set forth in this plea constitute a good bar to the plaintiffs' action.

We maintain that they do not, and that upon the demurrer to the plea the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment in the court below.

Before proceeding with the argument, it may be proper to draw the attention of the court to the facts, that, as it appears from the declaration and plea, neither of the Harris's was discharged by the court of common pleas, until after judgment was rendered against them in the circuit court—that Joseph Harris was not discharged until after the return of the ca. sa., and that the rule of court relied on in the plea, was adopted after the return of the ca. sa., and of course after the plaintiff's right of action had accrued. We hold, upon general principles, that an insolvent law of a state, providing a mode for the discharge of the persons of debtors from imprisonment, has no force except in the courts of the state—is only a law affecting the remedy—the mere lex fori.

It seems to us that the very statement of this proposition is enough to secure it a ready assent.

Between a bankrupt law and an insolvent law, a distinction has not unfrequently been made, defining the former as a law, by virtue of which the debtor is discharged, upon certain terms, from his contracts; and the latter, as a law, by which, on similar terms, the person of the debtor is exempted from imprisonment.

In relation to the rights of the several states to pass bankrupt laws, thus defined, (no law of congress existing upon the subject) after much litigation and a thorough investigation of the subject, it has been settled by the supreme court:

1. That bankrupt laws may be passed by a state, affecting all contracts subsequently made within the state, between citizens of the state.

2. That such laws cannot affect contracts, though made within the state, with a citizen of another state.

3. That they cannot affect contracts not made, or not to be performed within the state. 3 Story's Commentaries on the Constitution, 256.

But as to the insolvent laws of the states thus understood, we deny that they have any force in the courts of the union. A bankrupt law reaches the contract—such an insolvent law only the person of the debtor. The one discharges the contract upon certain specified terms—the other only the body. The one absolves the debtor from his debt—the other, leaving the debt in existence, declares that the creditor shall look only to the property of the debtor for satisfaction. The one acts upon and limits the effect of the contract—the other the remedy for a breach of the contract. One is the lex loci contractus, the other the lex fori. By a bankrupt law the contract is discharged, and cannot be enforced in any court or in any place. An insolvent law of this kind extends only to the courts, and the suitors in the courts, and the remedies by the courts of the government enacting the law. The right to pass insolvent laws of this description, is incident to the power of establishing courts of justice, and, as it respects the federal courts, it would not be necessary to derive it from the clause in the constitution authorizing congress to pass bankrupt laws. 2 Kent's Com. 462.

The laws of the states, vi propria, have no other force and effect in the federal courts than the laws of a foreign country. They regulate, limit and control...