Marsh v. McKenzie
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract for the price of dry goods sold to the defendant. Writ dated August 31, 1864. Answer, a general denial. An additional answer set up the institution of proceedings in insolvency against the defendant in the court of insolvency for Middlesex, since the entry of the writ, and a certificate of his discharge in insolvency by said court; and the plaintiffs filed a replication denying the validity of the discharge, and alleging that the certificate was obtained through…
Read the full summary
Contract for the price of dry goods sold to the defendant. Writ dated August 31, 1864. Answer, a general denial. An additional answer set up the institution of proceedings in insolvency against the defendant in the court of insolvency for Middlesex, since the entry of the writ, and a certificate of his discharge in insolvency by said court; and the plaintiffs filed a replication denying the validity of the discharge, and alleging that the certificate was obtained through accident and mistake of the register of insolvency. Trial in the superior court, before Reed, J., who allowed a bil of…
1Opinion of the CourtHoar, J.
The questions which arise upon the exceptions are these: first, Had the court of insolvency power to make the order contained in the paper marked A? and second, Is it such an amendment of the record as vacates the discharge in insolvency of the defendant, and makes it inoperative for his defence in the suit?
1. We are of opinion that the judge of insolvency had the power to amend the record of his court according to the truth, if the record at first made was erroneous. Such an authority is incident to a court of record; and the court of insolvency is a court of record. Gen. Sts. c. 118, § 1.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Cobbossee National Bank v. RichSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1889
- Winchester v. ThayerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880