The discharges granted by a state bankrupt court can have no extraterritorial effect.1 Hence a creditor domiciled outside of the state which grants such discharge, who does not participate in the proceedings in bankruptcy is in no way affected by such discharge,2 even if he has notice of such proceedings,3 since actual notice can not confer jurisdiction.4 This rule applies even to contracts made in the state where the discharge was given or to be performed there, or both, as long as the creditor is actually domiciled in another state.5 It applies to a foreign corporation doing business in the state which grants the discharge, even if such corporation has appointed an agent in such state on whom service can be made.6 It applies even where a non-resident individual has been doing business in the state under a name that suggests a domestic corporation.7 It applies to a partnership, one member of which is a non-resident.8 It applies to a contract entered into with a non-resident through an agent who is a resident.9 It applies to a debt due to a resident which is in good faith transferred to a nonresident before insolvency proceedings are begun.10 Thus a citizen of Massachusetts made a note payable to himself at Boston and then indorsed it to a citizen of Vermont. Such note was not barred by a discharge granted in Massachusetts.11 A claim assigned by a non-resident to a resident of the state in which insolvency proceedings are instituted is barred by such discharge,12 even if such assignment is merely to facilitate collection.13

3 Hanover National Bank v. Moyses, 186 U. S. 181, 46 L. ed. 1113.

See, The United States Bankruptcy Law of 1898, by Henry G. Newton, 9 Yale Law Journal, 287.

4 Hanover National Bank v. Moyses, 186 U. S. 181, 46 L. ed. 1113.

1 See, Voluntary Assignments and Insolvency in Massachusetts, by Pres-cott F. Hall, 8 Harvard Law Review, 266.

2 Crapo v. Kelly, 83 U. S. (16 Wall.) 610, 21 L. ed. 430; Brown v. Smart, 145 U..S. 454, 36 L. ed. 773; Hemp-sted v. Wisconsin Marine & Fire Ins. Co. Bank, 78 Wis. 375, 47 N. W. 627.

3 Butler v. Goreley, 146 U. S. 303, 36 L. ed. 981; McDermott v. Hall, 177

Mass. 224, 58 N. E. 695; Hempsted v. Wisconsin Marine & Fire Ins. Co. Bank, 78 Wis. 375, 47 N. W. 627.

4 See $$ 3128 et seq.

1 United States. Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U. S. (12 Wheat.) 213, 6 L. ed. 606; Cook v. Moffat, 46 U. S. (5 How.) 295, 12 L. ed. 159; Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U. S. (1 Wall.) 223, 17 L. ed. 531; Denny v. Bennett, 128 U. S. 489, 32 L. ed. 491; Brown v. Smart, 145 U. S. 454, 36 L. ed. 773.

California. Bean v. Loryea, 81 Cal. 151, 22 Pac. 513.

Iowa. Hawley v. Hunt, 27 la. 303, 1 Am. Rep. 273.

Maine. Swift v. Winchester, 96 Me. 480, 90 Am. St. Rep. 414, 52 Atl. 1017.

Massachusetts. Bergner & Engel Brewing Co. v. Dreyfus, 172 Mass. 154, 70 Am. St. Rep. 251, 51 N. E. 531.

New Hampshire. Stirn v. McQuade, 66 X. H. 403, 22 Atl 451.

New York. Pratt v. Chase, 44 N. Y. 597, 4 Am. Rep. 718.

North Dakota. Adams v. Hartzell, 18 N. D. 221, 119 N. W. 635.

Oregon. Main v. Messner, 17 Or. 78, 20 Pac. 255.

Vermont. Roberts v. Atherton, 60 Vt. 563, 6 Am. St. Rep. 133, 15 Atl. 150.

Washington. Weber v. Yancy, 7 Wash. 84, 34 Pac. 473.

2 United States. Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U. S. (12 Wheat.) 213, 6 L. ed. 606; Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U. S. (1 Wall.) 223, 17 L. ed. 531; Gilman v. Lock-wood, 71 U. S. (4 Wall.) 409, 18 L. ed. 432; Denny v. Bennett, 128 U. S. 489, 32 L. ed. 491.

California. Scamman v. Bonslett, 118 Cal. 93, 62 Am. St. Rep. 226, 50 Pac. 272.

Idaho. Security Savings & Trust Co. v. Rogers, 6 Ida. 526, 57 Pac. 316.

Maine. Swift v. Winchester, 96 Me. 480, 90 Am. St. Rep. 414, 52 Atl. 1017.

Massachusetts. Pattee v. Paige, 163 Mass. 352, 47 Am. St. Rep. 459, 28 L. R. A. 451, 40 N. E. 108; Haman v. Bremman, 170 Mass. 405, 49 N. E. 655.

South Carolina. Wilson v. Keels, 54 S. Car. 545, 71 Am. St. Rep. 816, 32 S. E 702.

Washington. Weber v. Yancy, 7 Wash. 84, 34 Pac. 473.

3 Hammond Beef & Provision Co. v. Best, 91 Me. 431, 42 L. R. A. 528, 40 Atl. 338.

4 Swift v. Winchester, 96 Me. 480, 90 Am. St. Rep. 414, 52 Atl. 1017.

5 United States. Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U. S. (1 Wall) 223, 17 L. ed. 531.

Connecticut. Easterly v. Goodwin, 35 Conn. 279, 95 Am. Dec. 237.

Maine. Pullen v. Hillman, 84 Me. 129, 30 Am. St. Rep. 340, 24 Atl. 795.

Massachusetts. Tebbetts v. Pickering, 59 Mass. (5 Cush.) 83, 51 Am. Dec. 48; Phoenix National Bank v. Batch-eller, 151 Mass. 589, 8 L. R. A. 644, 24 N. E. 917.

New York. Pratt v. Chase, 44 N. Y. 597, 4 Am. Rep. 718.

Vermont. Bedell v. Scruton, 54 Vt. 493.

6 Hammond Beef & Provision Co. v. Best, 91 Me. 431, 42 L. R. A. 528, 40 Atl. 338; Bergner & Engel Brewing Co. v. Dreyfus, 172 Mass. 154, 70 Am. St. Rep. 251, 51 N. E. 531.

7 Swift v. Winchester, 96 Me. 480, 90 Am. St. Rep. 414, 52 Atl. 1017. (Swift did business in Maine under the name of the Bangor Beef Co.)

If a discharge granted by a state court of insolvency is valid when granted, it may be interposed as a defense to an action in another state upon the same debt. Accordingly, a discharge granted in one state and barring debts due to another citizen of the same state may be interposed as a defense in a subsequent action in another state.14

A non-resident creditor may, however, take part in the insolvency proceedings, and thereby so submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court of the other state that a discharge will be binding upon him.15 He may take part in the proceedings so as to have this result by proving his claim,16 or by accepting a dividend.17

8 Chase v. Henry, 166 Mass. 577, 55 Am. St. Rep. 423, 44 N. E. 988.

9 Regina Flour Mill Co. v. Holmes, 156 Mass. 11, 30 N. E. 170.

10 Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U. S. (I Wall.) 223, 17 L. ed. 531; Felch v. Bugbee, 48 Me. 9, 77 Am. Dec. 203.

11 Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U. S. (1 Wall.) 223, 17 L. ed. 531.

12 Wheelock v. Leonard, 20 Pa. St. 440.

13 Where the claim is reduced to judgment in such state by such assignee in his own name. French v. Robinson, 86 Me. 142, 41 Am. St. Rep. 533, 20 Atl. 060.

14 Manufacturers1 National Bank v. Hall, 86 Me. 107, 20 Atl. 052; Hall v. Boardman, 14 N. H. 38.

Discharge in Maryland: suit in Ohio. Smith v. Parsons, 1 Ohio 236, 13 Am. Dec. 608.

Discharge in New York: suit in Ohio. Bank v. Card, 7 Ohio, Part II,

170; Jeffries v. Thompson, 2 Yeates (Pa.) 482.

15 United States. Baldwin v. Hate, 68 U. S. (1 Wall.) 223, 17 L. ed. 531.

California. Lowenberg v. Levine, 93 Cal. 215, 16 L. R. A. 159, 28 Pac. 041.

Florida. Rosenheim v. Morrow, 37 Fla. 183, 20 So. 243.

Massachusetts. Murray v. Roberts, 150 Mass. 353. 15 Am. St. Rep. 200, 6 L. R. A. 346, 23 N. E. 208; Gerding v. East Tennessee Land Co., 185 Mass. 380, 70 N. E. 206.

New Hampshire. Perley v. Mason, 64 N. H. 6, 3 Atl 620.

16 Clay v. Smith, 28 U. S. (3 Pet.) 411, 7 L. ed. 723.

17 Clay v. Smith, 28 U. S. (3 Pet.) 411, 7 L. ed. 723; Murray v. Roberts, 150 Mass. 353, 15 Am. St. Rep. 200, 6 L. R. A. 346, 23 N. E. 208. (Writ of error dismissed in 150 U. S. 361, on the ground that no federal question was involved.)