Mason & Hamlin Organ Co. v. Bancroft
New York Supreme Court
Demurrer to complaint. The complaint, after stating the incorporation of the plaintiff, and that the defendants, Edward W. Bancroft and T. F. Tracy, were sureties on a lease made by it to Morris Reiman, and Albert Friedlander, composing the firm of M. Reiman & Co., in December, 1872, for five years and two months from January 1, 1873, at the yearly rent of $17,000, payable monthly, alleged that in August, 1874, a petition in bankruptcy was filed in the district court of the…
Read the full summary
Demurrer to complaint. The complaint, after stating the incorporation of the plaintiff, and that the defendants, Edward W. Bancroft and T. F. Tracy, were sureties on a lease made by it to Morris Reiman, and Albert Friedlander, composing the firm of M. Reiman & Co., in December, 1872, for five years and two months from January 1, 1873, at the yearly rent of $17,000, payable monthly, alleged that in August, 1874, a petition in bankruptcy was filed in the district court of the United States against Reiman & Friedlander, and at that time there was due to plaintiff for rent $2,957.64. “ That the…
1Opinion of the CourtBarrett, J.
The effect of a composition confirmed by the bankrupt court, under section 17 of the. act of June 22, 1874, is substantially the same as a discharge under section 32 of the act of March 2, 1867. In the one case the creditors resolve that a composition proposed by the debtor shall be “ accepted in satisfaction of the debts due to them from the debtor; ” ‘in the other, the court grants the bankrupt “a discharge from all his debts.” It is said that in the latter case the debt remains, and that the discharge merely operates against the remedy, while in the former case the debt itself is satisfied…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Easton Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. CaminezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1911
- Herrington v. . DavittNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Herrington v. DavittNew York Supreme Court · 1914