Penniman v. Meigs
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought on a promissory note given in the state of Connecticut. The plaintiff formerly resided in Albany; but, a short time before the note was given, removed to the state of Rhode Island, where he has since resided, . . ...
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought on a promissory note given in the state of Connecticut. The plaintiff formerly resided in Albany; but, a short time before the note was given, removed to the state of Rhode Island, where he has since resided, . . ... The defendants after giving the note, obtained his discharge, on the 12th of November, 1811, under the insolvent act of this state, The plaintiff did not assent to the proceedings, nor has he received any dividend of the defendant’s estate. A verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, on the above case. And…
1Per curiam
There can be no doubt but that we are bound to consider a discharge under the insolvent act of this state, as a bar to all suits brought here upon antecedent contracts, wherever made. The statute is peremptory and binding on our courts. We cannot afford the party any other or further remedy than what our laws have prescribed. It was for the wisdom of the legislature to say whether foreign contracts should be exempted from the operation of our insolvent act, but they have not made any such exception. A new trial is, therefore, granted, with costs to abide She event of the suit.
New trial…
2Cited by6 opinions
- McDougall v. PageSupreme Court of Vermont · 1882
- Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1817
- Rhodes v. BordenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Ritchie v. GarrisonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1858
- Godfrey Pattison & Co. v. WilburSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1873
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.