Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/80

 74 Casts ruled and adjudged m the typo. huh, as eo·partnersPwere indebtegz and the fa&d’ C§_Iay, mer, mtr, ol? Swi and ` ay- i lar, nge timeofthehf?ifidatta"Z:’hmcnt£nglaidintheirhands 5 |efpeGively, wereindebtcd, in large fums of money toS.•udxfrtb Sergei}, as furviving partner of bam: Fludyer, Samuel Mnrjl and Her Huy:. · ¤• The debt demanded by the plaintiE§ in this attachment, was originallylilue to him, from Gdu Hmffon, deceafed, in his life time, in ` private and feparate right, and a ent was recovered in the Court of King': Bench, at   in Eu- glanl, fm' the fame, bythe plaintiifagainll the reknt defendants, asexecutors cf the faid Gr7r: Hui!/in, upon which judgment    declared inan a&ionoftrefpafs on the cafe, inthe hid attachment? ` The motionm diiliaefthe attachmentwats   on behalfof Soni Str ' I, urvivin rtnero on, and u ·  agigrounds :——ril€PThat a foreigri attachmgt willnot lie againltexccutors; and, adly. 'Ihat the partnerlhip credits of   E9'Hual[5u, cannot be attached to anfwer the feparate debt`o Hrdm. On the goth of 08o6¢·r, Tm; Pussinmrr delivered the opi- nion of the Court in favor of the furviving partner upon both points; and accordingly the rule was made abfolute. Bnuiuar wp: M1u.aa. y_ ` 309 HIS action wasbrought to recover a debtexceedingfro, ' but, upon being referred, the debt was reduced by a fet IR , and thereportof the refereeswasforno more than [8.*As k gb-gf the plaintilf had not previouily filed an allidavit of his belief, that. JQ rgth feftion of the act o the {/I March, 174;.) Banljm, con- . tended, that he was entitled to recover coils. 1 Val. Dall. Edit., • p. 308. 2 Ya!. p. 364. Howel, for the plaintitii faid, that if this action could not , have been brought oefore a jullice of the Peace, his client was of courfe, entitled to coils. The demand, in fac}, amounted to ézo, although it was liable to a defalcation; and it could not known whether thedefendant would elect to {et ol? his debt in the prefent action, or to make it the foundation of a feparate fuit. If the defendant had been fued before a jullice, and de- clined making a fet oi}, the plaintiff could not bring his debt within the ]u(l:ice’s jutifdiction, and mult, confe uently, have been non·l`uitcd there; and it would be an intolergble grievance, to fubjccl him to coils here, merely bccaufe his adverfary, afgr _ . c
 * ` the fum due exceeded { io, (agreeably to the provilion of the

�