2 Va. Ch. Dec. 298

Between PHILIP NATHANIEL DEVISME and Henry Smith, of the city of London in the kingdom of Great-britain, merchants and partners, plaintiffs, and HENRY MARTIN and company, of London, merchants, Hudson Martin and Nathaniel Anderson, defendants.

Sept., 1794.

1. Conflict of Laws — Bankruptcy—Law Governing.— If a British subject be declared a Bankrupt in England, Raving debts due him in this Commonwealth, his British creditors cannot recover satisfaction out of said debts in our Courts; for

2. Same — Same—Same.—The English Law will govern in our Courts in such a case and by that Law said debts would be transferred to the assignees in Bankruptcy.

IN this cause, the question was, whether the right to money, due to a bankrupt, from citizens of this commonwealth, was so transferred to the assignees of his effects that a british subject, who was a creditor of the bankrupt, resident in England, and did not clame any benefit from the assignment, could recover satisfaction for his demand out of that money? upon which the court, the 26 day of September, 1794, delivered this

*OPINION.

That the question controverted 'between the parties, in this cause, which is, in truth, a question between british creditors, on one side, and the assignees of a british debitor or debitors, declared a bankrupt or bankrupts, according to the laws of their country, on the other side, discussed before an american court, should be decided by those principles which ought to govern the decision, if the same question were discussed before an english court; and that by the english statutes concerning bankrupts, all the personal property of a bankrupt, wherever it be, is so transferred to the assignees that an english subject cannot recover a debt, contracted before the assignment, by an action against the bankrupt himself, or satisfaction for it out of his effects in the hands of others, although a creditor, who is not a british subject, and consequently not bound by the laws of Great Britain, (a) and perhaps too a british *275subject not having a domicilitun in fi}ng-

land, (b) may recover such debt, by an action against the bankrupt, or satisfaction for it out of his effects.

In consequence of which opinion the bill was dismissed.

Devisme v. Martin
2 Va. Ch. Dec. 298

Case Details

Name
Devisme v. Martin
Decision Date
Sep 1, 1794
Citations

2 Va. Ch. Dec. 298

Jurisdiction
Virginia

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!