Stanton v. Holmes
Supreme Court of Connecticut
CASE stated. This was a scire facias against garnishees. The orx-ginal action was against Ebenrzer Wilson and Beniamin . . J Smith, describing them as absent and absconding debtors, in the capacity of executors of the last will of John Bird, late of Troy, in the state of jYew-York, deceased.
Read the full summary
CASE stated. This was a scire facias against garnishees. The orx-ginal action was against Ebenrzer Wilson and Beniamin . . J Smith, describing them as absent and absconding debtors, in the capacity of executors of the last will of John Bird, late of Troy, in the state of jYew-York, deceased. It was % agreed by the parties, that Wilson and Smith had never • * lived or resided within the state of Connecticut; that their piaee of residence, at the time óf the commencement of the original action against them, was, apd ever since has been, at Troy, in the state of Nenv-York; that John Bird, the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The first question is, whether the executors of John Bird were absent and absconding debtors.
As they have ever been inhabitants of the state of Afew-York, they were absent; but it does not appear from the facts in the case, that they can, with any propriety, be considered as absconding.
John Bird was the debtor of the plaintiff. But his executors in the state of A'ew-York are only holden in that capacity to execute his will, and administer on his estate, according to the law's of that state, and pay his debts so far as they have assets in their hands. But *96they are not, and by…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bray v. Town of WallingfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1850
- Stillman v. IshamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1835
- McMeekin v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1849