This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1903 Excerpt: ...such satisfaction, and if properly presented to the court, will be entered of record on the roll. The policy of the law, moreover, prohibits the defendant from entering into any agreement by which the judgment or debt, upon which he is in custody, shall, for any purpose whatever, be made to survive his release, and ...
Read More
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1903 Excerpt: ...such satisfaction, and if properly presented to the court, will be entered of record on the roll. The policy of the law, moreover, prohibits the defendant from entering into any agreement by which the judgment or debt, upon which he is in custody, shall, for any purpose whatever, be made to survive his release, and pronounces all such agreements null and void. Nevertheless, the discharge of the defendant shall be a good consideration for an original and independent contract, which, if afterwards violated, may be enforced by new proceedings. This last rule avoids the hardship to which creditors might otherwise, even against their inclination, be compelled to subject their imprisoned debtors, who are unable to liquidate their debt by actual payment, but can give satisfactory security in consideration of a discharge. Archb. New Com. Law Pr., p. 257, Ed. 1853; Sewell on Sheriffs, 198. We have next to ascertain whether the American courts have adhered to the doctrines of the common law as expounded in England. The precise question as to the effect of the voluntary discharge of the debtor from custody, has, it is believed, never been decided by this court. But, in two coses, the nature of the writ of ca. m. has been incidentally discussed, so far as it Magniac et al. v. Thomson. bore collaterally upon points then before the court. It was only necessary, therefore, to enter into the subject, and to press the conclusions far enough to meet the particular question presented. Thus, in The United States v. Stansbury, 1 Pet., 573, the question before C. J. Marshall was, whether the rights of a particular debtor were to be governed by the common law or by an act of Congress. Having decided in favor of the latter position, he waives all argument upon the common law, and ...
Read Less
