Tompkins v. Hazen
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
"Appeal by the defendant, Byron E. Hazen, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the cleric of the county of Putnam on the 15tli day of November, 1897, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
Read the full summary
"Appeal by the defendant, Byron E. Hazen, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the cleric of the county of Putnam on the 15tli day of November, 1897, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes. The action was brought upon a promissory note made and delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff on the 2d day of May, 1867, by which he promised to pay the plaintiff one day after date the sum of $400 with interest at seven per cent. The answer alleged that the defendant…
1Opinion of the Court
Hatch, J.:
In the case of Dusenbury v. Hoyt (53 N. Y. 521) it' was settled that while the legal obligation to pay a debt was extinguished by a *360discharge in bankruptcy, the moral obligation to pay remained, and that this obligation, when united with a subsequent promise to pay the debt, gave a right of action. It wras also-held in that .case that a .plea upon the original debt was a good plea, and that no reply was needed in order to prove the new promise in avoidance of a plea setting up the discharge in bankruptcy. This has been the established rule since. (Argall v. Jacobs, 21 Hun, 114;…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Allen & Co. v. FergusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Wakeman v. . ShermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Lawrence v. . HarringtonNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Dusenbury v. . HoytNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Sherman v. HobartSupreme Court of Vermont · 1853