HENDERSON v. ALLEN, 1 U.S. 149 (1785)
U.S. Supreme Court
HENDERSON v. ALLEN, 1 U.S. 149 (1785)1 U.S. 149 (Dall.)
Henderson
v.
Allen
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County.
September Term, 1785
A judgment had been entered at the settlement of the docket, and the defendant was taken in execution on a Ca. Sa. returnable to December Term 1785. He now applied for the benefit of the insolvent acts, although he was not taken in execution till the 26th of September, and his petition was presented subsequent to the application made by the debtors, on the third day of the term.
The Court said that the practice under the act for the relief of insolvent debtors, was, that only those should be discharged, who made their application within the three first days of the term; for, otherwise, the Court might be continually employed on this business, to the delay and detriment of every other.
The Prothonotary mentioned, on this occasion, that it was the constant practice to enquire, whether the writ of execution was returnable to the term, at which the defendant applied for his discharge.
The petition was dismissed.
Bankson for the plaintiff. Rawle for the defendant.[ Henderson
v. Allen 1 U.S. 149
(1785) ]
U.S. Supreme Court
HENDERSON v. ALLEN, 1 U.S. 149 (1785) 1 U.S. 149 (Dall.) Hendersonv.
Allen Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County. September Term, 1785 A judgment had been entered at the settlement of the docket, and the defendant was taken in execution on a Ca. Sa. returnable to December Term 1785. He now applied for the benefit of the insolvent acts, although he was not taken in execution till the 26th of September, and his petition was presented subsequent to the application made by the debtors, on the third day of the term. The Court said that the practice under the act for the relief of insolvent debtors, was, that only those should be discharged, who made their application within the three first days of the term; for, otherwise, the Court might be continually employed on this business, to the delay and detriment of every other. The Prothonotary mentioned, on this occasion, that it was the constant practice to enquire, whether the writ of execution was returnable to the term, at which the defendant applied for his discharge. The petition was dismissed. Bankson for the plaintiff. Rawle for the defendant.[ Henderson v. Allen 1 U.S. 149 (1785) ]
