1786.
ftance, by a verdict in favor of the Defendant, they would clearly have been a bar to the action here.
2. But, fhould the Defendant find no protection under the law of nations, the 4th Article oƒ the Confederation, effectually fupplies that defect. The article declares, that ‘‘ full faith and credit fhall ‘‘ be given in each of thefe States to the records, acts, and judicial ‘‘ proceedings, of the Courts and Magiftrates of every other State.’’ Now, if a judgment, or other judicial proceeding in New-Jerʃey had not been evidence before, this provifion (to the true fenfe of which the law of Pennʃylvania is fubfervient) would have made it fo– if it was only prima ƒacie evidence before, this would render it conclufive. What Lord Mansƒield declares in Doug. 5. to be the cafe with refpect to certain Courts in Weʃtminiʃter had (whofe decifions and proceedings are unexaminable evidence) is alfo true when applied to the feveral Court s of Juftice in the States of the American Union ; and the difcharge in New-Jerʃey may be carried about by the Defendant into each of thofe ftates, as an impenetrable fuit of armour to guard him from all future attacks upon his liberty, for a caufe of action exifting at the time it was granted.
The motion was oppofed by Coxe, Ingerʃol, and Sergeant who argued that judgments in foreign Courts were only prima ƒacit evidence, except in Courts of Admiralty, whofe decrees were conclufive, becaufe founded upon the law of nations, which is common to all the world ; that as a judgment without fatisfaction could not bar an action for the fame debt in another country, 3 Atk. 598. much lefs would the proceedings under the Act in queftion, which did not extinguifh, or even alter the debt ; but only difcharged the perfons of the debtor from arreft within the State of New-Jerʃey from their creditors in New-York and Pennʃylvania; to the inhabitants of which ftates, the citizens of New-Jerʃey (owing to their having no fea-port, and paving an intereft of 7 per Cent. for money) were conftantly indebted ; fo that the extention of the Act did not deferve to be favored here. That in the cafe of Lopez, in the Court of Appeals, and in the caufe between Connecticut and Pennʃylvania, depofitions taken in Connecticut, according to one of their ftatutes, were not admitted to be read, becaufe contrary to the common law. That the payment of intereft for money lent, was the only inftance regulated by foreign laws. That a certified Engliʃh bankrupt, was liable to arreft in Ireland. That, even if validity of a foreign proceeding is admitted, a right to examine the ground, upon which it was founded remain ; and, therefore, that it might be proved, that he Defendant was not entitled to the benefit of the Act ; as he was not a native of New-Jerʃey, nor had be refided there one year previous to the arreft. That, upon the whole, it would be extremely hard, after the creditors on the fpot, who having joined in the petition according to the directions of the Act, had fhared the fpols ; an abfent creditor, who never of the difcharge, fhould be barred.
