Opinion
JUNE TERM, 1788.
Sergeant and Ingersoll, for the Plaintiff, attempted to establish this distinction, that, in Millar versus Hall, the Defendant was a citizen of Maryland, and that the money, for which the action was brought had been received in Baltimore; but that in this case, Young, though sometimes in Maryland, was, in fact, a citizen of Pennsylvania, and that the debt was contracted here. They acknowledged, however, after the examination of the witnesses, that they had failed in their proof; and, therefore, no argument was made in support of the distinction.
ON a rule to shew cause why an Exoneretur should not be entered on the Bail-piece, it appeared, that the Defendant was a resident of Maryland (though he came occasionally to Philadelphia upon business) and was duly discharged under the insolvent law of that State. Upon the authority of Millar versus Hall, ant. 229. the rule was made absolute.