60 Vt. 563 | Vt. | 1888
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The note on which recovery is sought was given in this State to the plaintiff, then a resident of the State, by the defendant, then also a citizen and resident of the State.
The plaintiff removed from the State. Subsequently the defendant was adjudged an insolvent and by due course of proceedings received a discharge in the court of insolvency. The plaintiff in no way became a party to the proceedings in the court of insolvency in which the defendant obtained his discharge. The single question presented by the exceptions is, did the discharge thus procured by the defendant discharge the debt due the plaintiff evidenced by the note? We think it is clear that it did not. It is now fully established by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and of most of the state courts of last resort that state insolvent laws can have no jurisdiction beyond the limits of the state in and for which they were enacted, and that if the debt is of such a
The judgment of the County Court is affirmed.