Lester v. Thompson & White
New York Supreme Court
ON the trial of this cause, the defendants offered in Whence, their discharge under the insolvent act. It was attempted, on the part of the plaintiff, to show that the discharge was void, on account of fraud. The fact alleged in proof of the fraud, was the stating, in their account to the judge, that the plaintiff was their debtor, when, in truth, he was a considerable creditor of the defendants.
Read the full summary
ON the trial of this cause, the defendants offered in Whence, their discharge under the insolvent act. It was attempted, on the part of the plaintiff, to show that the discharge was void, on account of fraud. The fact alleged in proof of the fraud, was the stating, in their account to the judge, that the plaintiff was their debtor, when, in truth, he was a considerable creditor of the defendants. The proceedings took place, before the last revision of the laws, and the fact now alleged as a fraud, does not appear to be included among those which are declared to be fraudulent by the former…
1Per curiam
The discharge is conclusive as to the facts-stated in. it, except as to those particular acts or frauds expressed in the eleventh section of the statute. The fact now alleged is not one of those mentioned. The plaintiff should have contested this question before the judge, before the discharge was granted : he is nqw too late in his *301objection, and is precluded by his own default, from con-r L v Í . A testing the validity of the discharge on that ground.
Judgment for the defendants.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Reed v. GordonNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Ansonia Brass Co. v. ConnerNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1881
- Soule v. ChaseThe Superior Court of New York City · 1863