Burrows v. Dumphy

2 Del. 308

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: July 5, 1837
• Status: Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This act gives a great stretch of power to the court, and we must take care that we do not carry it so far as to violate the constitution of the United States by extending the obligation of these contracts. One of these notes is now due, and the plaintiff may sue upon it and hold the defendant to bail; as to the other, the court might perhaps safely go so far as to direct the party to give security to appear here and answer to a suit on it; but as to ordering him to give better security for the payment of the money, we have our doubts, though the act is so.

It was suggested that the plaintiff was a resident of Pennsylvania, and this remedy under the act is given only “ to the inhabitants of this government.”

Sed non allocatur. The remedy under this section has always been held to extend to all citizens of the United States; and it is a question whether a contrary construction would not make the act a violation of the constitution of the United States.

W. H. Rogers, for plaintiff. Rodney, for defendant.

James Dumphy, the defendant," was now sworn, and the court finally quashed the writ.

So the plaintiff took nothing by his motion.