M'MILLAN
v.
M'NEILL

U.S. | 1819-02-01
4 Wheat. 209 Supreme Court of the United States (1819) Caution
Also reported at: 4 L. Ed. 552 · 1819 U.S. LEXIS 311 · SCDB 1819-014
Cited by 7 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court, that this case was not distinguishable in principle from the preceding case of Sturges v. Crowninshield. That the circumstance of the State law, under which the debt was attempted to be disr charged, having been passed before the debt was contracted, made no difference in the application of the principle. And that as to the certificate under the English bankrupt laws, it had frequently been determined, and was well settled, that a discharge under a foreign law, was no bar to an action on a, contract made in this country.

Judgment affirmed,

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Ogden, 12 Wheat. 213 (U.S. 1827)
    …act ? This question has never before been distinctly presented to the consideration of this Court, and decided, although it has been supposed by the judges of a highly respectable State Court, that it was decided in the cáse of M'Millan v. M‘Niel, (4 Wheat. Rep. 209.) That was the case of a debt contracted by two citizens of South Carolina, in that State, the discharge of which had a view to no other State. The debtor afterwards removed .to the territory of Louisiana, where he was regularly discharged, as an in…
    1 / 2
  • Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223 (U.S. 1863)
  • Suydam v. Broadnax, 14 Pet. 67 (U.S. 1840)

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw