Riston v. Content

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania

Riston v. Content

20 F. Cas. 840, 4 Wash. C. C. 476

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 15, 1824

StatusPublished

This text of 20 F. Cas. 840 (Riston v. Content) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Riston v. Content, 20 F. Cas. 840, 4 Wash. C. C. 476 (circtdpa 1824).

Pincite

Opinion

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.

According to the uniform decisions of this court (Serg. Const. Law, 152; [Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co. of New York], 1 Pet. [20 U. S.] 404; [D’Wolf v. Rabaud] Id. 484), where the debt is contracted out of this state, unless it be made payable in the state, a discharge under the insolvent law of this state is not to be regarded as discharging the person of the defendant. This is admitted by the defendant’s counsel. But then, he insists, that the notes being dated in Philadelphia, is evidence that the debt was to be paid here. The court is of a different opinion. The debt was contracted in Baltimore, and the note is only evidence of the contract; it does not distinguish it. The acknowledgment of the debt, whether in writing or by parol, wherever it is made, does not amount to an agreement to pay in the place where the acknowledgment is made; nor can it be so construed. It is evidence of nothing farther than that it was made in that place. Let a judgment be entered.

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

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.

According to the uniform decisions of this court (Serg. Const. Law, 152; [Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co. of New York], 1 Pet. [20 U. S.] 404; [D’Wolf v. Rabaud] Id. 484), where the debt is contracted out of this state, unless it be made payable in the state, a discharge under the insolvent law of this state is not to be regarded as discharging the person of the defendant. This is admitted by the defendant’s counsel. But then, he insists, that the notes being dated in Philadelphia, is evidence that the debt was to be paid here. The court is of a different opinion. The debt was contracted in Baltimore, and the note is only evidence of the contract; it does not distinguish it. The acknowledgment of the debt, whether in writing or by parol, wherever it is made, does not amount to an agreement to pay in the place where the acknowledgment is made; nor can it be so construed. It is evidence of nothing farther than that it was made in that place. Let a judgment be entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 F. Cas. 840, 4 Wash. C. C. 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riston-v-content-circtdpa-1824.