Friedlander v. Loucks
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fifteenth Judicial District, County of Contra Costa. This was an action upon a promissory note given by the defendant to the plaintiff on the 2d day of August, 1862, for one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars. The defendant pleaded his discharge under the Insolvent Act.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Fifteenth Judicial District, County of Contra Costa. This was an action upon a promissory note given by the defendant to the plaintiff on the 2d day of August, 1862, for one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars. The defendant pleaded his discharge under the Insolvent Act. His petition was filed on the 26th day of December, 1862. The petition, besides the averment contained in the opinion, stated that “ the schedule hereto annexed marked ‘ B ’ contains the names of his creditors, as near as he can now state them, and the amount due to each creditor, the cause…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Shafter, J.:
It is insisted that the discharge of the defendent in insol-” vency is null and void as to the plaintiff’s note, for the reason that the note was not described in the schedule of debts, nor was the plaintiff named as a creditor therein. The defendant’s proceedings in insolvency were under the Insolvency Act of 1850, as amended in 1860. By the amendment to the twenty-fourth section, it was provided that, “ the release and discharge provided for in this section shall not apply to debts and liabilities not mentioned and set forth *24in the schedule, unless the insolvent…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Brewster v. LudekinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- Kohlman v. WrightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856
3Cited by4 opinions
- Crall v. Board of Directors of Poso Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Newlove v. Mercantile Tr. Co. of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1909
- Carter v. JAI-PUT Enterprise Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2020
- In re MarshCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896