Opinion
SEPTEMBER TERM, 1795.
THE opinion of the Court was delivered in this case, by
At the court of Nisi Prius, held in Huntingdon county, the following case was stated for our opinion. The plaintiff was jointly and severally bound, as surety, in a bond with, and for, the defendant. After the bond became due, the defendant was discharged under the general insolvent act of the State of Maryland, passed in April 1787; and, subsequent to that discharge, the plaintiff was sued on the bond, paid the amount with interest and costs, and then instituted the present action (in which the declaration is for money paid for the use of the defendant) to obtain a reimbursement.
Under these circumstances, it is clear, that the action would be sustained in England, against a bankrupt, discharged by the bankrupt laws of that country. The insolvent law of Maryland does, indeed, exonerate the debtor from all debts due or owing from, or contracted by, him, prior to his deed of assignment; but the English statute contains words equally comprehensive; and, yet, it has never been deemed to extend to cases like the present. The plaintiff could not have been entitled to a dividend of the insolvent debtor's effects, and it would be a denial of justice to refuse him the only remedy, which he can have on this occasion.
Judgment for the Plaintiff.