Legal Opinion

Shippey v. Henderson

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1817PublishedCited by 13 opinions

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contain-e(^ counts for goods sold and delivered, and for money had and received, in which the promises were Hid on the 1st'of May¡ 1815. The defendant pleaded, 1. Non assumpsit. 2. That, after making the supposed promises mentioned in the declaration, and before the exhibiting the plaintiff’s bill, on the 15th of February, 1812, the defendant was an insolvent debtor, within . , . . the meaning of the insolvent act of April 3d,…

Read the full summary

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contain-e(^ counts for goods sold and delivered, and for money had and received, in which the promises were Hid on the 1st'of May¡ 1815. The defendant pleaded, 1. Non assumpsit. 2. That, after making the supposed promises mentioned in the declaration, and before the exhibiting the plaintiff’s bill, on the 15th of February, 1812, the defendant was an insolvent debtor, within . , . . the meaning of the insolvent act of April 3d, 1811, and had ° , r . •, ’ been prosecuted, &c., tha the presented a petition, &c. and that, on foe :6th May, 1812, his…

1Opinion of the Court

Thompson, Ch. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court. The question that arises in this case is, whether the plaintiff may declare upon the original cause of action, or whether he is bound to declare specially upon the new promise. I think the proper way is to declare on the original cause of action. 1 see no reason why this case should differ from that of infancy, or that where the action is barred by the statute of limitation.

The discharge under the insolvent act does not make the original contract void; it is expressly laid down by Chitty (Pl. 40.) that where a debt is barred by a…

2Cited by13 opinions

  1. Champion v. BuckinghamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
  2. Watkins v. StevensNew York Supreme Court · 1848
  3. Boyd v. HurlbutSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
  4. Earnest v. ParkeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
  5. Marshall v. TracyIllinois Supreme Court · 1874

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API