Berger v. Houghton
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Craighead Circuit Court; Frank Smith, Judge; Sureties can not recover against a bankrupt after his discharge, even though they paid the debt afterwards.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Craighead Circuit Court; Frank Smith, Judge; Sureties can not recover against a bankrupt after his discharge, even though they paid the debt afterwards. Acts Cong. 1898, § 63, subd. 1, and § 57, subd. x; 26 Ark. 231, overruling 6 Ark. 241; 10 Ala. 589; 7 How. 117; 88 N. W. 351. The contingent claim of a surety is not provable, and the debt was not discharged. 121 Fed. 699. The transcript fails to state that the evidence was all the evidence adduced. 17 Ark. 327. The bill of exceptions shows conclusively that it did not. 44 Ark. 74; 42 Id. 29.
1Opinion of the CourtMcGueeoch, J.
This case was tried before the circuit judge sitting as a jury, and it is contended by appellants that the evidence adduced does not warrant the finding in favor of appellees.
The state of the record does not justify us in reversing the judgment. There is no bill of exceptions in the record.
The transcript begins with copies of the pleadings; then follow, in the order named, what purports to be an agreed statement of facts signed by the attorneys, a copy of the note sued on, an order of discharge in bankruptcy, a petition in bankruptcy, order of the court noting the filing of defendant’s…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ashley v. Stoddard, Jr. & Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1871
- London v. HutchensSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Anthony v. BrooksSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1877
- Kirksey v. ColeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- Randolph v. McCainSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1879
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Foohs v. BilbySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Hanson v. AndersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Wright v. Midland Valley RailroadSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Springfield Business College v. StephensSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921