Harrison v. Lourie
The Superior Court of New York City
Tub action is upon a judgment recovered in the court of queen’s bench, London, on the 21st of March, 1870, for 972¿. 14s. sterling. The defense is a discharge in bankruptcy under the bankruptcy laws of Great Britain (1861), granted April 8, 1870. The application for the discharge was upon the petition of the bankrupt, with a schedule of his indebtedness.
Read the full summary
Tub action is upon a judgment recovered in the court of queen’s bench, London, on the 21st of March, 1870, for 972¿. 14s. sterling. The defense is a discharge in bankruptcy under the bankruptcy laws of Great Britain (1861), granted April 8, 1870. The application for the discharge was upon the petition of the bankrupt, with a schedule of his indebtedness. Among his creditors the plaintiffs were named, with their residence, and the amount of the indebtedness (£1,734), and that it arose upon acceptances of bills of exchange and for damages and costs in a suit then pending on behalf of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Monell, G. J.
Under the bankruptcy act of Great Britain (24 and 25 Victoria, 1861), non-provable debts are not affected by a discharge; and the question here is whether the debt which was merged in the judgment, now the subject of this action, was provable under the act.
The action upon it was pending when the discharge was obtained. The defendant had been summoned and had pleaded. The issues were tried by a jury, who assessed the damages, and judgment was entered.
It is conceded that if the debt which constituted the cause of action was provable in the bankruptcy proceeding, the discharge is a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lazier v. . WestcottNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Elwood v. . GardnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
3Cited by3 opinions
- Glass v. BlackwellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- In re the Estate of PetersonNew York Surrogate's Court · 1909
- Columbia Bank v. . BirkettNew York Court of Appeals · 1903