Sicard v. Whale

11 Johns. 194
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1814·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Thompson, Ch. J.

It is impossible to distinguish this case from that of Smith v. Spinolla. That case was decided on a sound principle, that if a foreign creditor pursues his debtor here, he is entitled to the remedy provided by our own laws. We look oniy to the course of proceedings established in our own courts. The lex loci contractus is not applicable on this motion. When the cause comes to issue, and the discharge is pleaded, it will be time enough to consider of its effect.

Per Curiam.

Motion denied.

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

Sicard v. Whale, 11 Johns. 194 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1814).

11 Johns. 194 (Sicard v. Whale) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stern v. Schlesinger
5 N.Y.S. 1 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1889)
Hochstadter v. Hays
11 Colo. 118 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1887)
Belmont v. Cornen
48 Conn. 338 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1880)
Mount v. Bradford
2 Miles 17 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1836)
Wood v. Malin
10 N.J.L. 208 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1828)
Andrews v. Herriot
4 Cow. 508 (New York Supreme Court, 1825)
Whittemore v. Adams
2 Cow. 626 (New York Supreme Court, 1824)
Morris v. Eves
9 Mart. 730 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1822)
Le Roy v. Crowninshield
15 F. Cas. 362 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1820)