Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/163

152 

AZARUS BARNET having abfconded, feveral foreign attachments  were iffued againft him ; and afterwards, motions were made to fet them afide refpectively, in favour of a domeƒtic attachment,  which had, likewife iffued againft him. Thefe motions were all founded upon the following affidavit. ‘‘ Daniel Benezet maketh oath that on or about the 12th day oƒ May 1783, the deponent let his houfe in Second Street Philadelphia  to a certain Lazarus Barnet ;  that the faid Lazarus Barnet had refided therein and followed the bufinefs of a Merchant or Store-keeper from that time ‘till about two weeks ago,  when the faid Lazarus  abfconded from the city, or fecreted himfelf therein, as this deponent is informed. And this deponent further faith, that the faid Lazarus Barnet appeared to him to be a married man, and having a family and fervants in this houfe.’’ Sworn the 11th of December, 1784.

This cafe was argued on the 20th of January by Sergent and Levy againft the foreign attachments ; and Wilʃon and Ingerʃol in  fupport of them. On the 27th of the fame month, delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court.

SHIPPEN, Preʃident.— The queftion before us, is, whether the ƒoreign attachments, or the domeƒtic  attachment, iffued againft Lazarus Barnet, fhall be eftablifhed ? The arguments in fupport of the foreign attachments, are chiefly founded on the third claufe in the firft act of Affembly, which fays that ‘‘ no writ of atachment fhall be granted againft any perfons effects, but fuch only as,  at the time of granting ʃuch writs, are not refident, or refiding, within this province ; ’’  and on that of the fecond act, which leaves non refidents to be proceeded againft by foreign attachmetns, agreeably to the directions of the firft act. And it is urged, that, in the prefent cafe, it does not appear, that Lazarus Barnet was refident or refiding within the fate at the time of granting the domeftic attachment, and, if he was not fo refident, he is the object of the foreign attachment law.

Our opinion on this cafe, muft be founded upon a connected view of feveral acts of Affembly relating to attachments ; and thefe are the 4 ''Ann. c.'' 28. the 9 Geo. 1. c. 3. and the 14 Geo. 3. c. 5.

The object in paffing the ƒirʃt act, was to fubject the effects of abfent debtors to the payment of their debts ; as it appears by the preamble, that before that time, they were not equally liable with the effects of thofe perfons who refided on the fpot. Within the provifions of that act, three forts of debtors were included :— 1ft. Thofe who never refided here, or whofe actual refidence was abroad. 2. Thofe who had refided here, and had abfconded, or otherwife removed ; both of which are comprized in the general defcription of non refidents in the third caufe of the act ; and 3d. Thofe who were