496 CORRIE'S CASE.

These, and similar legislative enactments passed by the other
colonies, now states of our Union, were, before the revolution,
much complained of by the mother country, as bearing hardly and
unjustly upon the interests of creditors resident in Great Britain, (x)
Indeed, England having a greatly extended commerce, and her
merchants and manufacturers crediting abroad vastly more than
they owe to foreign creditors, has a strong and peculiar interest
in contending for a rule which draws to herself the distribution
of all the effects which her lucrative commerce has dispersed
over the globe; (y) and hence, it has long since become the set-
tled policy of the English judiciary, to extend the operation of
their bankrupt laws, so as to grasp and gather under their admi-
nistration, for the benefit of English creditors, the effects of those
who may be declared bankrupt under their laws, from all parts of
the world, regardless of the pernicious bearing of such a proceed-
ing upon the interests of the foreign creditors of such bankrupt or
insolvent debtors; upon the ground, that personal property must
be governed by the law of the owner's domicil. (z) And yet it is
held by them, that the discharge of a debtor, under the bankrupt
or insolvent laws of one country, cannot impair the obligation of
contracts made in another, or discharge such debtor from any lia-
bility to the claims of his foreign creditors contracted any where
else, (a)

But the weight of American judicial authority, is adverse to
such an unfair course of proceeding, and accords in principle with
the before mentioned legislative enactments of Maryland, by which
the interests of the state's own citizens are to be first and spe-
cially regarded; and for that purpose, our law refuses to allow the

(x) Ex parte Blakes, 1 Cox, 398; Hunter v. Potts, 4 T. R. 187; Chalmer's Poli-
tical Annals, 689, 693; 1 Chal. Opin. Em. Lawyers, 29. In an opinion of the
attorney and solicitor-general, D. Ryder and W. Murray, given on the 3d of June,
1747, to the commissioners of trade and plantations, respecting an act which had
been passed in the year 1715, by the general assembly of North Carolina, for giving
priority to country debts, they say, 'that such part of the act as postpones the exe-
cution on judgments for foreign debts, in the manner therein provided, is contrary
to reason, inconsistent with the laws, and greatly prejudicial to the interests of this
kingdom; and therefore, unwarranted by the charter; and consequently, void. And
we are of opinion, that his majesty may declare the same to be so, and his royal dis-
allowance thereof/ 2 Chal. Opin. Em. Lawyers, 62.—(y) Holmes v. Remsen,
20 John. Rep. 264.—(s) Sill v. Worswick, 1 H. Black. 665; Philips v. Hunter,
2 H. Blac. 402; Hunter v. Potts, 4 T. R. 183.—(a) Smith v. Buchanan, 1 East 6;
Lewis v. Owen, 6 Com. Law Rep. 555; Phillips v. Allen, 15 Com. Law Rep. 269;
M'Kim v, Marshall, I H. & J. 101; Frey v. Kirk, 4 G. & J. 510.