Smith v. Healy
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of assumpsit, tried before the superior court, in New-Haven county, January term, 1821. On the 20th of November, 1816, the defendant was discharged from the demand in the plaintiff’s declaration, pursuant to the act giving relief in certain cases of insolvency, of the state of New-York, passed April 12th, 1813. At the time of contracting the debt, which was subsequent to the 12th of April, 1813, and until after the discharge was obtained, the parties were…
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, tried before the superior court, in New-Haven county, January term, 1821. On the 20th of November, 1816, the defendant was discharged from the demand in the plaintiff’s declaration, pursuant to the act giving relief in certain cases of insolvency, of the state of New-York, passed April 12th, 1813. At the time of contracting the debt, which was subsequent to the 12th of April, 1813, and until after the discharge was obtained, the parties were inhabitants of the state of New-York. The defendant claimed, that the discharge was effectual, in this state, to protect…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
This case is ruled by Woodbridge v. Wright and Canfield, 3 Conn. Rep. 523. and Atwater v. Townsend, ante 46.
I would advise the issuing of execution, in this case, against the body and estate of the defendant.
The other Judges were of the same opinion, except Brainard, J., who being absent, gave no opinion.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Woodbridge v. WrightSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1821
3Cited by2 opinions
- Wood v. MalinSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1828
- Town of East-Hartford v. PitkinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831