Low v. Durfee
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
Actioa of contract upon a promissory note by a citizen of New York against a citizen of Massachusetts. Pending the suit, the defendant was adjudged an insolvent under the insolvent law of Massachusetts. His assignees came in and defended, but they and the debtor afterwards submitted to have the case defaulted.
Read the full summary
Actioa of contract upon a promissory note by a citizen of New York against a citizen of Massachusetts. Pending the suit, the defendant was adjudged an insolvent under the insolvent law of Massachusetts. His assignees came in and defended, but they and the debtor afterwards submitted to have the case defaulted. The defendant then set up that he had received his discharge under the state law, and moved that the execution to be issued upon the judgment should be limited so as not to run against his body. The plaintiff moved for a judgment for full costs against the assignees, and for an…
1Opinion of the CourtLowell, C. J.
1. Nearly all the costs which are taxable in this case were those of the attachments on mesne process; and, if the plaintiff elects to prove his debt in the insolvency proceedings, the taxable costs will be paid in full. This being so, I see no propriety in charging the assignees personally with this burden, incurred before they were appointed. And I have no power to say that it shall be paid out of the assets. Their appearance in the case was proper enough, if they wished to see that an excessive judgment was not rendered against the debtor for the purpose of being proved; for they could not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- United States v. TetlowDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1872
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States v. PalermoDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1957
- Hayes v. Canada, A. & P. S. S. Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1911
- In re PurvineCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1899
- Rivera v. CadiernoDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1907
- Stuart v. ReynoldsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1913