Pullen v. Hillman
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On report. Assumpsit upon a promissory note given by the defendant at Monson, Piscataquis county, March 31, 1888, payable to the plaintiff, then a resident of the same town, at the Kineo National Bank of Dover, in said county. The writ is dated August 30, 1890. The plaintiff removed April 15, 1889, from the State to New York where he has ever since been a citizen of that State, residing at Cortland.
Read the full summary
On report. Assumpsit upon a promissory note given by the defendant at Monson, Piscataquis county, March 31, 1888, payable to the plaintiff, then a resident of the same town, at the Kineo National Bank of Dover, in said county. The writ is dated August 30, 1890. The plaintiff removed April 15, 1889, from the State to New York where he has ever since been a citizen of that State, residing at Cortland. After the plaintiff’s removal from the State and on the ninth day of January, 1890, the defendant obtained a discharge in the court of insolvency, upon his petition filed in that court June 3,…
1Opinion of the CourtEmery, J.
The contract which is the subject of this action, was made within this State between citizens of this State, and was to be performed within this State. Subsequently, the promisor, the defendant, after regular proceedings in the proper court of insolvency in this State, was granted by that court a discharge from all his debts under R. S., ch. 70, sec. 44. This *130discharge was properly pleaded in bar of this action, and it is conceded that it would be an effectual bar, if the promisee, the plaintiff, who was a citizen of this State at the time of making the contract, had also been a citizen of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Baldwin v. HaleSupreme Court of the United States · 1864
- Tappan v. Merchants' National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Denny v. BennettSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Gilman v. LockwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hornick, More & Porterfield v. Farmers' & Merchants' BankSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1929
- Steger v. ShofnerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932
- Havana Electric Railway Co., In re Estate of NeelySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1938