Colby v. Ledden

Full title: ABRAHAM COLBY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v . JAMES LEDDEN

Court: U.S.

Date published: Jan 1, 1849

48 U.S. 626 (1849)

12 L. Ed. 847

7 U.S. (How.) 626

Opinion

JANUARY TERM, 1849.

The decision of this court in the preceding case of Peck v. Jenness affirmed.

C.B. Goodrich, for the defendant in error.

As to the principal question, I rely upon the argument submitted in the case of Peck v. Jenness. The attachment in this case was made before the passage of the bankrupt statute. It cannot with much reason be said, that the right which the defendant below acquired by his attachment, legal when made, can be taken from him by subsequent legislation. Every objection, however, can be made in this case, which can be taken in relation to any attachment. The debt is discharged here, to the same extent as any other debt.

As to the objections, that the statute requisites have not been complied with which are essential to constitute an attachment, I submit that the State court is the exclusive judge in this particular, and that its judgment is not open to review in this court.

THIS, like the preceding case of Peck v. Jenness, was brought up from the Superior Court of Judicature of the State of New Hampshire, by a writ of error issued under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act.

Ledden was an inhabitant of the Province of New Brunswick, and Colby of the State of New Hampshire. The attachment was issued in 1837.

The case was similar, in its principal circumstances, to that of Peck v. Jenness, and was argued together with it.

Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was argued with the case of Philip Peck et al. v. John S. Jenness et al., and the record presents the same questions which have just been decided in that case. For the reasons there assigned, the judgment of the Superior Court of New Hampshire is affirmed.

Order.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record to the Superior Court of Judicature of the State of New Hampshire, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Superior Court of Judicature in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed, with costs and damages at the rate of six per centum per annum.