Dole v. Warren
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit, by one co-surety to recover contribution against another co-surety. The plaintiff and defendant and two others, in 1836, became sureties for one Lancy, as a collector of taxes. In November, 1842, the defendant petitioned to be declared a bankrupt.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, by one co-surety to recover contribution against another co-surety. The plaintiff and defendant and two others, in 1836, became sureties for one Lancy, as a collector of taxes. In November, 1842, the defendant petitioned to be declared a bankrupt. An action on the bond was commenced against all the obligors, upon the 12th of December, 1842. On the 13th of the same December, the defendant was decreed to be a bankrupt, and on the 30th of January, 1844. obtained a bankruptcy discharge. During the progress of the suit on the bond, and after said discharge had been obtained, the obligee…
1Opinion of the CourtTenney, J.
The facts reported in this case bring it within the principle of the cases of Woodward v. Herbert & al. 24 Maine, 358, and Ellis v. Ham, 28 Maine, 385. The claim *96of the plaintiff was one, which might, by possibility, exist at a future time, when the defendant filed his petition to become a bankrupt, and when he was decreed to be such ; but it was then so uncertain, that it could not have been proved as a claim against the bankrupt’s- estate, and was not discharged by his certificate.
The voluntary discontinuance as to Warren by Whitman in the suit, upon the bond against Lancy and his sureties,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Lorimer v. Julius Knack Coal Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1929
- Mann v. EvertsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- Thomas v. LiebkeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1880
- Eberhardt v. WoodCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1875