1788.
could not be long protracted, as the ſpecial bail had ſent a bail piece and power of attorney to take the Defendant, and ſurrender him in this Court.
Coulthurſt, for the Plaintiff, laid, that the debt was contracted in Philadelphia, and was there due and payable from the Defendant to the Plaintiff ; that Williams came hither to pay the debts of the company, as well as to collect their credits ; that he was a foreigner, in the ſtrongeſt meaning of the word, and, conſequently, could not be affected by the caſe of Lewis v Turner, which was decided on the ground of the party's being a citizen.
With reſpect to the accounts, he endeavoured to ſhew, from the cauſe of action, that they could not be material to the defence on this occaſion; and contended, that the Defendant's abſence was no reaſon to defeat the Plaintiff's claim to the benefit of the act.
M’KEAN, Chief Juſtice.–The act ſeems to be intended for the benefit of every man, whether an inhabitant, or a foreigner, who is about to leave the State; and the Plaintiff is clearly within the deſcription of perſons entitled to a Special Court. But, we think, for the ſecond reaſon which has been urged by the Defendant's counſel, that it would be doing manifeſt injuſtice to hurry the trial on at this time: Therefore,
Guthrie Aſſignee verſus White.
A Certiorari was iſſued to John Culbertſon Eſq; one of the Juſtices for the county of Cheſter, to remove the proceedings in this cauſe; and the record being accordingly returned, it appeared that one Irwin, having maintained the Defendant's daughter for ſeveral weeks made out an account againſt him, and, after ſwearing to the truth and juſtice of its contents, he aſſigned all his right, title and intereſt therein to the Plaintiff. The debt being under ten pounds, the Plaintiff, in his own name, ſued the father before the Juſtice upon this aſſignment, and obtained a judgment and execution againſt him; although, as it was ſtated in the Defendant's depoſition, his daughter was of full age at the time of contracting the debt, and no aſſumption, upon his part, had been proved or ſuggeſted.
Bradford moved to reverſe the Judgment; 1ſt, on account of the general irregularity of the proceedings; and 2dly, becauſe an action could not be maintained, by the aſſignee of a ſimple contract debt, in his own name.
The Court conſidered the whole proceedings to have been irregular; but ſaid, that there could be no doubt of the ſufficiency of the ſecond reaſon alone, as a ground for ſetting them aſide. And the Judgment was accordingly reverſed.
