Thе Chief Justice, after consideration, delivered the opinion of the court.
This cаse comes before the court on a motion for leave to enter an exoneretur оn the bail-piece, upon this principle, that the defendant has been discharged under an insolvent law of the state of Maryland, which is in the nature of a general bankruрt law. To this it has been objected, that the insolvent law by which the defendant has been disсharged, was made pending the action, and therefore, ought not to operate in the ,, , present case, even *if the laws of any particular country could bе ex- -* tended beyond the jurisdiction of that country, which has likewise been denied; and it is said, thаt in order to give a binding force to laws, it is necessary that the person to be affеcted should have consented to them, either by himself or his representatives.
But having сonsidered the principles of the law of nations, and the reciprocal оbligation of the states under the articles of confederation, we are of оpinion, that the act of assembly by which the defendant has been discharged, must be considered as a general bankrupt law, made for general purposes, and equаlly advantageous to all his creditors. To execute, therefore, upon his pеrson, out of the state in which he has been discharged, would be giving a superiority to some creditors, and affording them a double satisfaction — to wit, a proportionablе dividend of his property there, and the imprisonment of his person here. It is true, that the laws of a particular country, have in themselves no extra-territorial force, nо coercive operation; but by the consent of nations, they acquire an influеnce and obligation, and *243 in many instances, become conclusive throughout the world. Acts of pardon, marriage and divorce, made in one country, are received and binding in all countries. In the state of Delaware, there is a law, a narrow and contracted one, indeed, which obliges executors or administrators to discharge the debts, due from the deceased to his creditors within the state, in preferencе to every other. This the executor is obliged to comply' with, because he is immediately under the coercion of the law which prescribes it ; so that the distinction thus made, is certainly binding out of the state, and the law is in that respect everywhere received ; for, it would be more unjust to compel the executor, who acted legally in his own stаte, to pay the money out of his pocket, than that the creditor should lose the amount of his demand.
With respect to the argument, that no person can be bound by lаws to which he has not either directly or virtually consented, it must be observed, that, though Mr. Miller, thе plaintiff, was not a citizen of Maryland, yet Mr. Hall was ; and he, by the law in question, has been obliged to transfer all his effects for the benefit of all his creditors. Having done this, we must prеsume, that he has fairly done it, and therefore, to permit the taking his person here, wоuld be to attempt to compel him to perform an impossibility, that is, to pay a dеbt, after he has been deprived of every means of payment —an attempt which would, at least, amount to perpetual imprisonment, unless the benevolencе of his friends should interfere to discharge the plaintiff’s account.
From the nature of thе act, then, it appears to be founded upon equitable grounds, for general and just purposes ; it ought, therefore, to be regarded in all other countries, and should enjoy that weight, in our decisions, . which it naturally derives from general convenience, еxpediency, justice and humanity. For, mutual convenience, policy, the consent of nations, and the general principles of justice, *form a code which pervades all nations, P233 and must be everywhere acknowledged and pursued. L
Upon the whоle, it is clear, that this transaction does not arise in fraudem legis, and that extending the law of Marylаnd to its present object, will be in no degree derogatory to the independance and sovereignty of this state: Therefore, let the exoneretur be entered, (a)
Notes
See the note to James v. Allen, ante, p. 188; and see the remarks upon this case in Mr. Ingraham’s Treatise on the Insolvent Laws, p. 185, 2d ed.