Legal Opinion

Langley v. Berry

Superior Court of New Hampshire

Decided July 15, 1843Published

Foreign Attachment. The trustee, in answer to the general interrogatory, disclosed, that at the time of the service of the plaintiff’s writ there was an unsettled account between the said Stephen F. Berry and himself, which account still remained unsettled at the time of the disclosure ; —that he should think there was and still remained due to the said Stephen F. Berry, from him, the sum of thirty dollars;—that the said Stephen F. Berry claimed as due from him the sum of…

Read the full summary

Foreign Attachment. The trustee, in answer to the general interrogatory, disclosed, that at the time of the service of the plaintiff’s writ there was an unsettled account between the said Stephen F. Berry and himself, which account still remained unsettled at the time of the disclosure ; —that he should think there was and still remained due to the said Stephen F. Berry, from him, the sum of thirty dollars;—that the said Stephen F. Berry claimed as due from him the sum of about forty dollars. He further stated that about eight or ten days before the service of the plaintiff’s writ upon him,…

1Opinion of the CourtW oods, J.

Upon the facts disclosed by the trustee, he is clearly chargeable for the sum of $30,00, being the amount of his indebtedness to the principal defendant at the date of this action, as admitted by the trustee.

The fact relied upon for his discharge cannot avail. The mere promise alone of the trustee to pay to Samuel Berry such sum as should be found due from him to Stephen F. Berry, cannot constitute a sufficient ground of discharge. In order to that result, it is necessary that it should appear that the promise was made upon an adequate consideration. The payee is to be regarded merely as an…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Giddings v. ColemanSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1841

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API