This page is an unofficial LFoD record and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. Taft
June 1, 1881 - Opinion
Case records
Open case page| Date | Record Text | Type | Party | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| June 1, 1881 | Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. Taft Current page | Opinion | Supreme Court | Reporter |
HILLSBOROUGH,
JUNE, 1881.
Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. Taft.
A judgment upon a debt provable in bankruptcy, rendered after the defendant’s petition in bankruptcy was filed, and before his discharge, is not barred by his discharge.
Debt, on a Massachusetts judgment recovered in October, 1878. The plaintiff demurred to a plea which averred the defendant was discharged in bankruptcy, September 6, 1879, from all debts provable in bankruptcy, and existing January 9, 1877, the day of the filing of his bankruptcy petition; the judgment is founded on causes of action existing on that day, and provable in bankruptcy; and the judgment was rendered after his petition was filed, and before his discharge. cited Dawson v. Hartsfield, 79 N. C. 334; Smith v. Kinney, 6 Neb. 447; Monroe v. Upton, 50 N. Y. 593; Pattison v. Wilbur, 10 R. I. 448; Ogden v. Redd, 13 Bush. 581; Matter of Brown, 5 Ben. 1; In re Rosey, 8 Bank. Reg. 509.
6r. T". Sawyer cf* Sawyer, Jr., for the plaintiff.
A. F. Stevens, for the defendant,
Doe, C. J.
For reasons given in the Massachusetts decisions, we think a defence is not stated in the plea. Bradford v. Rice, 102 Mass. 472; Holland v. Martin, 123 Mass. 278.
Demurrer sustained.
Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.