Legal Opinion
Cross v. Hobson
New York Supreme Court
Decided August 15, 1804PublishedCited by 4 opinions
This was an application to be discharged out of custody the defendant having been exonerated from" the demand under the insolvent law.
1Opinion of the Court
*Per Curiam.
The defendant can take nothing by his motion. In the cause of Caldwell v. Graham, decided in January term, 1803, we determined we would not help an insolvent who omitted to plead his discharge as he might have done.[1]
Motion denied.
See case of Shaw v. Wilmerden, 2 Cai. R. 38; Van Valkenbergh v. Dederick, 1 J. C 133; see Billings v. Skutt, 1 J. C. 105.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Dresser v. BrooksNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Palmer v. HutchinsNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Monroe v. . UptonNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Rudge v. RundleNew York Supreme Court · 1873