Field v. Howland
New York Supreme Court
TEE defendant obtained his discharge as an insolvent debtor, on the 8th of January, 1812, under the insolvent act of the 3d of April, 1811. The agent and attorney of the plaintiff appeared before the judge, in behalf of the plaintiff, a judgment creditor, to oppose the defendant’s discharge ; and after ex-amiuing the insolvent, became satisfied, as the affidavit, on the part of the defendant stated, with the explanations of the defendant, relinquished all opposition, and…
Read the full summary
TEE defendant obtained his discharge as an insolvent debtor, on the 8th of January, 1812, under the insolvent act of the 3d of April, 1811. The agent and attorney of the plaintiff appeared before the judge, in behalf of the plaintiff, a judgment creditor, to oppose the defendant’s discharge ; and after ex-amiuing the insolvent, became satisfied, as the affidavit, on the part of the defendant stated, with the explanations of the defendant, relinquished all opposition, and consented to his discharge, which was thereupon granted by the judge. No proceedings were, afterwards, had on the part of…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The conduct of the plaintiff’s attorney is equivalent to an abandonment of his suit; and if the defendant had applied, after obtaining a regular discharge under the act, for a discontinuance, we should have ordered a rule for that purpose, to be entered. We think, under these circumstances, that the motion ought to be granted.
Motion granted.
2Cited by3 opinions
- President v. OsgoodNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Collins & Co. v. RodolphSupreme Court of Iowa · 1851
- Graham v. PiersonNew York Supreme Court · 1843