Clay v. Smith

28 U.S. 411, 7 L. Ed. 723, 3 Pet. 411, 1830 U.S. LEXIS 547
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 16, 1830
StatusPublished
Cited by52 cases

This text of 28 U.S. 411 (Clay v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clay v. Smith, 28 U.S. 411, 7 L. Ed. 723, 3 Pet. 411, 1830 U.S. LEXIS 547 (1830).

Opinion

Mr Justice Johnson

delivered the opinion of the Court;

This case comes up from the Louisiana district, by" writ of error, to reverse a judgment obtained ,there by Smith vs. Clay.

Smith, is a citizen of Kentucky; and Clay, of Louisiana; and the action was brought td recover a debt incurred in the year 1808.

Clay?s defence rests upon the validity of a discharge obtained in a court of the state, under a law?of- the state, in the year 1811. The plea sets out his petition to the court ; his surrender of his .effects; the schedule of his debts, in which Smith’s debt is specified, as also the payment to hirn of ten per cent, the ^dividend declared by the assignees of *412 the bankrupt; and the judgment of the court, rendered in pursuance of the consent of more than a majority of his creditors in number and amount, that he be discharged, “as well his person as his future effects, from' all the claims of his creditors.” The language of the plea is, “ upon which said petition, the usual proceedings being had thereon, the said plaintiff and other creditors, and said defendant being parlies thereto, the said Supreme court by their final decree pronounced, in the premises, on the 15th of June *1811, declared the sáid defendant, as well his person as his subsequently acquired property and effects, for ever.released from all claims, debts, and demands,” &c. previously due.

This plea is demurred to, and thus the. question is raised, whether Smith, by voluntarily making himself party to such proceedings, has not abandoned his extra-territorial immunity from the operation of the bankrupt laws of Louisiana.

We are of opinion that he did; and was bound by the decision of the state cc art to the same extent to which the citizens of that state were bound.

Judgment reversed.

Case remanded, with instructions to enter judgment for defendant there. And in consequence of the death of Clay, while thé cause was held under.advisement, tha.t it be entered, nunc pro tunc, as on the first day of this term.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the district cour,t of the United States for the district of Louisiana, and Was argued hy counsel j on consideration whereof, it is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said district court in this cause be* and the same is hereby reversed, and that the cause be, and thé same is remanded to the said district court, with instructions to the said court to enter judgment for John Clay, the defendant in said court. And it is further ordered by the court,' that in consequence of the death of the said Clay, -while this cause was held under advisement, that judgment' be entered, nunc pro tunc, as on the first day of this term.

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

Related

Wagda v. AT&T Corp.
E.D. California, 2022
In re the Application of Austin
33 Haw. 832 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1936)
Land Title, Waimalu
33 Haw. 832 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1936)
Madden v. La Cofske
72 F.2d 602 (Ninth Circuit, 1934)
Charles Roesch & Sons Co. v. Mumford
230 F. 56 (Third Circuit, 1916)
Hocks v. Sprangers
87 N.W. 1101 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1902)
Power v. Lenoir
56 P. 106 (Montana Supreme Court, 1899)
Pierce v. Somerset Railway
171 U.S. 641 (Supreme Court, 1898)
Electric Co. v. Dow
166 U.S. 489 (Supreme Court, 1897)
Elton v. O'Connor
31 L.R.A. 524 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1896)
Joseph Rosenheim & Co. v. Morrow
37 Fla. 183 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1896)
Eustis v. Bolles
150 U.S. 361 (Supreme Court, 1893)
Cole v. Cunningham
133 U.S. 107 (Supreme Court, 1890)
Murray v. Roberts
6 L.R.A. 346 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)
Brown v. Smart
14 A. 468 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1888)
Fogler v. Clark
14 A. 9 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1888)
Eustis v. Bolles
16 N.E. 286 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
Perley v. Mason
3 A. 629 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1885)
Greene v. A. & W. Sprague Manufacturing Co.
52 Conn. 330 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1885)
In re Estate of Jarrett
42 Ohio St. (N.S.) 199 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 U.S. 411, 7 L. Ed. 723, 3 Pet. 411, 1830 U.S. LEXIS 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clay-v-smith-scotus-1830.