POTTER VS. KERR. 281

as it does in this case, that a number of these judgment credi-
tors are non-residents of the state.

The rights of these creditors are, unquestionably, not affected
by the discharge of Kerr under the insolvent laws of Maryland.
Independently of the case of Cook vs. Moffatt et al., 6 Howard
Rep., 296, the last decision, it is believed, of the Supreme Court
upon the subject, the Court of Appeals of this state, in the case
o{ Frey vs. Kirk, 4 Gill & Johns., 509, have put the question
at rest. In remarking upon the case of Ogden vs. Sounders,
12 Wheaton, 213, they say, that the ultimate opinion of Mr.
Justice Johnson, which established the law upon the subject,
settled among others, the principle, "that such laws, (speaking
of the state insolvent laws,) although constitutional in their
action upon the rights of their own citizens, are unconstitu-
tional, when they affect the rights of citizens of other states."

It is said, however, that though the state insolvent laws are un-
constitutional, so far as they operate upon the rights of the citi-
zens of other states, that yet the decisions of the Supreme Court
of the United States, concede to the states, the power to pass
laws, affecting and regulating the remedies which may be re-
sorted to, for the enforcement of those rights. And it is urged,
that our state insolvent system, which, as expounded by the
Court of Appeals in the case of Alexander and Ghiselin, places
the whole property of the insolvent in the hands of the trustee,
to be administered by him, is a mere regulation of the remedy,
and so far constitutional and binding upon the citizens of other
states. And that, consequently, the property must be delivered
to the trustee, who will distribute it among the creditors ac-
cording to their respective rights.

This view of the subject is in direct conflict with what was
said by the learned judge, who delivered the opinion of the
Court of Appeals in the case of Larribee vs. Talbot, decided at
December term, 1847, which was, that "it was now settled by
the adjudications of the Supreme Court, that a discharge ob-
tained under the insolvent laws of Maryland, could not affect
the right of foreign creditors to obtain against the insolvent in
the Maryland courts an absolute and unqualified judgment, and
24*