Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/268

 266 fedebaij befobteb. �low v. durfee. {Œreuit Court, D. Massachusetts. December 30, 1880.) �1. Suit Against Insoi^vent— Defencb by Assignee— CosTS.—Pending a suit upon a promissory note by a citizen of New York against a citi- zen of Massacliusetts, the defendant was adjudged an insolvent under the law of the latter state, and his assignees tliereupon came in and defended, and subsequently submitted to have the case defaulted. Eeld, that the action should be dismissed, as against the assignees, ■without costs, unless the plaintiff elected to take judgment for the purposes of proof in insolvency, in which case that election was to be expressed in the judgment, and no execution should issue. �SL Impeisonmbnt for Debt— Rev. 8t. H 990, 991.— Theintent of sections 990 and 991 of the Revised Statutes, relating to imprisoraent for debt, is that in civil actions for debt the defendant shall be subject to im- prisonment, and be released therefrom, precisely as he would be under the law of the state. �8. Same- Gen. St. dp Mass. e. 118,} 78 — Uev. St. f 990.— Section 78, e. 118, of the General Statutes of Massachusetts, provides that a debtor who has received his certiflcate of discharge shall be forever there- after discharged and exempt from arrest and imprisonment in any suit or upon any proceeding for, or on account of, any debt or demand which might have been proved against his estate. Held, that this express exemption of discharged insolvents from imprisonment upon provable debts was a " modification * * * upon imprisoment for debt," within the meaning of section 990 of the Eevised Statutes relating to imprisonment for debt. — [Ed. �Action of contract upon a promissory note by a citizen of New York against a citizen of Massachusetts. Pending the suit, the defendant was adjudged an insolvent under the in- solvent law of Massachusetts. His assignees came in and defended, but they and the debtor afterwards submitted to have the case defaulted. The defendant then set up that he had received his disciiarge under the state law, and moved that the execution to be issued upon the judgment should be limited so as not to ran against his body. The plaintiff moved for a judgment forfuU costs against the assignees, and for an unrestricted execution against defendant. �F. Dabney, {H. W. Suter with him,) for plaintifif. �M. F. Dickinson, Jr., for the assignees. �A. Euss, for defendant. ����