Bradford v. Farrand

13 Mass. 18
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 15, 1816·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It has been settled, in the preceding case of Blanchard vs. Russell, that a certificate of discharge, under an insolvent law of another State, is binding here only upon contracts made within the State which enacts the law, or which by the terms of them are to be there performed. The debt in this case must be considered to have arisen within this State ; the bargain from which it arose was made here, and it was not provided that it should be performed in Pennsylvania; although the plaintiff might have applied there for his remedy, if he had seen fit.

Defendant defaulted.

[M'Millan vs. M'Neil, 4 Wheat. 209.— Green vs. Sarmiento, Peters C. C. 75.—Le Roy vs. Crowninshield, 2 Mason, 162. — Blake vs. Williams & Trustee, 6 Pick. 286. — Ed.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bradford v. Farrand, 13 Mass. 18 (Mass. 1816).

13 Mass. 18 (Bradford v. Farrand) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brighton Market Bank v. Merick
11 Mich. 405 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1863)
Le Roy v. Crowninshield
15 F. Cas. 362 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1820)
Watson v. Bourne
10 Mass. 337 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1813)