Maples v. Burnside
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
Demurrer to replication. The declaration was in assumpsit. Plea, Actio non, because, &c., the defendant, on, &c., at, &c., he, the said defendant, (then and there residing, &c.,) “ was owing debts to a large amount, which debts he was then and there utterly unable to meet, pay, or discharge, and which said debts had not, nor had any of them or any part thereof been created by or in consequence of any defalcation of a public officer, or as executor, administrator, guardian or…
Read the full summary
Demurrer to replication. The declaration was in assumpsit. Plea, Actio non, because, &c., the defendant, on, &c., at, &c., he, the said defendant, (then and there residing, &c.,) “ was owing debts to a large amount, which debts he was then and there utterly unable to meet, pay, or discharge, and which said debts had not, nor had any of them or any part thereof been created by or in consequence of any defalcation of a public officer, or as executor, administrator, guardian or trustee, nor while acting in any other fiduciary capacity.” The plea then states that the defendant thereby became…
1Per curiam
’ The plea is fatally defective. There is a class of debts upon which a bankrupt’s discharge does not operate, and a plea of such discharge must shew that the plaintiff’s debt does not belong to that class. The two averments referred to by the defendant’s counsel do not, even argumentatively, make this out. It is not averred that all the defendant’s debts were such as did not arise in consequence of a defalcation by a public officer, «fee., but only that he owed debts which were not so created ; and at the conclusion he only says that the plaintiff’s debt, if it existed, was owing prior to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Urciolo v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
- Dresser v. BrooksNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Coates v. SimmonsNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Hennequin v. ClewsThe Superior Court of New York City · 1880