SUPREME COURT OF Pennʃylvania:
MILLAR verʃus HALL.
R
ULE to fhew caufe why an Exoneretur fhould not be entered on the bail-piece.–The Defendant had obtained his difcharge under the infolvent law in the State of Maryland, which law was enacted fubfequent to the debt in queftion, and to the inftitution of this fuit. It was ftated, and allowed, that the money for which the action was brought, has been paid to Hall in Maryland, on account of goofs fold and delivered upon a commiffion as the partner of Millar ; but that the original agreement under which they acted in the fale of thofe goods was executed in Philadelphia, and that the proceeds belonged to merchants refiding in Pennʃylvania, where, confequently the payment was to be made. It was, likewife, admitted, that the Defendant was refident in, and fubject of the laws of, Maryland, and that the Plaintiff was refident in, and fubject to the laws of Pennʃylvania: And it did not appear to the Court that the Plaintiff was returned as a creditor in the Defendant's fchedule ; nor was any notice of the time and place of furrender ferved upon him, though a general publication, of the Defendant's intention to take the benefit of the Infolvent law, was made, in the ufual form, in the Baltimore Gazette.
Maylan, in fhewing caufe againft the rule, argued, that according to the ftrict idea of a municipal law, it was limited in its operation of the jurifdiction of the ftate that made it ; for jus civile eʃt quad quiʃque ʃibi populus conʃtituit ; and to a free people particularly, it muft appear unreafonable that there fhould be legiflation where there is no reprefentation. 2 Inʃt. 98. There are, however, he acknowledged, cafes in which an indirect effect if given to foreign ftatutes
