Hennequin v. Clews
The Superior Court of New York City
The questions determined in the following opinion arose on a trial by the court and jury of the issues in this action, which, as to the defendants Henry Clews- and Theodore S. Fowler, had been directed to be tried by jury (see 43 Super.
Read the full summary
The questions determined in the following opinion arose on a trial by the court and jury of the issues in this action, which, as to the defendants Henry Clews- and Theodore S. Fowler, had been directed to be tried by jury (see 43 Super. Gt. 411, 416; affirmed, 76 N. Y. §598.) The pleadings upon which the questions relating to the discharge in bankruptcy of defendants Clews and Fowler, aver as follows : The original answer contained this averment: “ I. The answer of the defendants Henry Clews and Theodore S. Fowler, to the complaint in this action, by J. M. Gruiteau, their attorney, shows to…
1Opinion of the Court
“Freedman, J.
the answer, as originally interposed, the defendants, Clews and Fowler, pleaded that on petition of certain of their creditors they had been duly adjudged bankrupts under the laws of the United States.
“When they subsequently obtained their discharges, they applied for and in 1876 obtained the leave of this court to set it up by way of supplemental answer. In granting such leave this court decided that they were entitled to whatever benefit might accrue to them from the discharge.
“A supplemental answer, setting forth this fact, was thereupon served and accepted, but no order…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Pratt v. . Hudson River Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Wachter v. . QuenzerNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Hennequin v. . ClewsNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Richtmeyer v. . RemsenNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Conro v. Port Henry Iron Co.New York Supreme Court · 1851
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.