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

1785.

L

AZARUS BARNET having absconded, several foreign attachments were issued against him; and afterwards, motions were made to set them aside respectively, in favour of a domeƒtic attachment, which had, likewise issued against him. These 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 house in Second Street Philadelphia to a certain Lazarus Barnet; that the said Lazarus Barnet had resided therein and followed the business of a Merchant or Store-keeper from that time 'till about two weeks ago, when the said Lazarus absconded from the city, or secreted himself therein, as this deponent is informed. And this deponent further saith, that the said Lazarus Barnet appeared to him to be a married man, and having a family and servants in this house." Sworn the 11th of December, 1784.

This case was argued on the 20th of January by Sergent and Levy against the foreign attachments; and Wilson and Ingersol in support of them. On the 27th of the same month, the President delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court.

Shippen, President.—The question before us, is, whether the ƒoreign attachments, or the domeƒtic attachment, issued against Lazarus Barnet, shall be established? The arguments in support of the foreign attachments, are chiefly founded on the third clause in the first act of Assembly, which says that "no writ of attachment shall be granted against any persons effects, but such only as, at the time of granting such writs, are not resident, or residing, within this province;" and on that of the second act, which leaves non residents to be proceeded against by foreign attachments, agreeably to the directions of the first act. And it is urged, that, in the present case, it does not appear, that Lazarus Barnet was resident or residing within the state at the time of granting the domestic attachment, and, if he was not so resident, he is the object of the foreign attachment law.

Our opinion on this case, must be founded upon a connected view of several acts of Assembly relating to attachments; and these are the 4 Ann. c. 28. the 9 Geo. 1. c. 3. and the 14 Geo. 3. c. 5.

The object in passing the first act, was to subject the effects of absent 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 those persons who resided on the spot. Within the provisions of that act, three sorts of debtors were included:— 1st. Those who never resided here, or whose actual residence was abroad. 2. Those who had resided here, and had absconded, or otherwise removed; both of which are comprized in the general description of non residents in the third cause of the act; and 3d. Those who