Caldcleugh v. Carey

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Caldcleugh v. Carey

5 Watts & Serg. 155

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 15, 1843

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 Watts & Serg. 155 (Caldcleugh v. Carey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Caldcleugh v. Carey, 5 Watts & Serg. 155 (Pa. 1843).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The principle of this case was settled in M’Clure v. Foreman, (4 Watts éf Serg. 280), where it was held that one discharge serves for all. In the case at bar, the arrest in the county of the debtor’s residence was prior, in point of time, and the discharge from it preferable, in point of effect, to a discharge from an arrest abroad. A second discharge, therefore, would have been nugatory.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The principle of this case was settled in M’Clure v. Foreman, (4 Watts éf Serg. 280), where it was held that one discharge serves for all. In the case at bar, the arrest in the county of the debtor’s residence was prior, in point of time, and the discharge from it preferable, in point of effect, to a discharge from an arrest abroad. A second discharge, therefore, would have been nugatory.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Watts & Serg. 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caldcleugh-v-carey-pa-1843.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack