Lyle v. Foreman

Supreme Court

Lyle v. Foreman

1 U.S. 480, 1 L. Ed. 232, 1 Dall. 480, 1789 U.S. LEXIS 242

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided December 1, 1789·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Shippen, President,

observed, that while a man remained in the State, though avowing an intention to withdraw from it, he must be considered as an inhabitant, and, therefore, not an object of the Foreign Attachment. If an inhabitant clandestinely withdraws, or secretes himself, to avoid his creditors, he becomes liable to the Domestic Attachment. The having once been an inhabitant will not, however, protect a man forever from a ForeignAttachment, where he has notoriously emigrated from the State, and settled elsewhere. But the cafe before the Court, is that of a Foreign Attachment issued at the very time that the Defendant was an inhabitant of the State, which cannot be maintained.

Let the rule be made absolute.

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

Shippen, President,

observed, that while a man remained in the State, though avowing an intention to withdraw from it, he must be considered as an inhabitant, and, therefore, not an object of the Foreign Attachment. If an inhabitant clandestinely withdraws, or secretes himself, to avoid his creditors, he becomes liable to the Domestic Attachment. The having once been an inhabitant will not, however, protect a man forever from a ForeignAttachment, where he has notoriously emigrated from the State, and settled elsewhere. But the cafe before the Court, is that of a Foreign Attachment issued at the very time that the Defendant was an inhabitant of the State, which cannot be maintained.

Let the rule be made absolute.

Lyle v. Foreman, 1 U.S. 480, 1 L. Ed. 232, 1 Dall. 480, 1789 U.S. LEXIS 242 (1789).

Pincite

1 U.S. 480 (Lyle v. Foreman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related