ambler case Robertson against Wilkie that July court will not grant ne exeat  royal power where the person life out of the kingdom and the transaction be on  the faith of have justice where he reside lib Reg b foe on motion to discharge  writ of ne exeat royal power Lord Hardwicke chancellor say it be a reason that  general prevail with I not to grant such writ where one of the party  correspond or deal life out of the kingdom and the transaction be on the faith  of have justice in the place where the party respective reside and so it have  be hold where one live in England and the other in one of the plantation or  settlement belong to England which be govern by the same law except some few  peculiar to the place but in Gibraltar and Minorca the law be not the same as  here in the former the jurisdiction be not adapt to the determine property and  account between merchant in Minorca the Spanish method of justice prevail and  therefore the reason do not hold where one of the party reside in one of these  place but I do not rely on that so much as that there be no faith between the  party here and have justice where they reside for two of they live at first at  Gibraltar afterward one of they remove to Minorca V curry v Mackenzie d Dec  pierce v Lisle that Oct order that upon the defendant give security of pound  by recognizance with two surety condition to abide and perform such decree and  order as the court shall make in this cause the writ of ne exeat royal power  be discharge the fact upon which the writ be issue in this case be correct  state in dick Rep vol lib Reg b foe it be now settle in opposition to the  present case and to the case of pearme v Lisle ante and curry v ken that a  writ of ne exeat royal power may issue against a defendant who general  residence be out of England and in respect of a debt contract abroad Howden v  Roger I v b and it seem also that such writ may be grant where the plaintiff  be a Englishman and the defendant be a foreigner and the debt be contract in  the country of the latter Huck v holme I W but whether it may where the  plaintiff and defendant be both foreigner and the debt be contract in their  own country and ere see in Huck v holme and the case of Talleyrand v Boulanger  cite there page and see de career v de calonne Ves where the plaintiff and  defendant be foreigner but the debt be contract in this country it may issue  where plaintiff and defendant be both British subject general resident in one  of the colony and where the debt be contract there Atkinson v Leonard bro c c  in Jackson v Petrie Ves Stewart v Graham Ves and in such last case it make no  difference that there can be no arrest for debt in the colony see in Huck v  holme I W and so decide by Lord Eldon in grant v grant to be report by Mr  Russell see on this subject general beam Tr on ne ex Reg d edit p et seq and  see the note by Mr Cox to do case p W and in the note to the same case in the  that edit of p W ambler er p