Greely v. Willey
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on a promissory note signed by the defendants,. George F. Willey, Nelson S. Willey, and George G. Tenney. The writ was dated May 3, 1899, and on that date the real estate of Nelson S. and Tenney was attached. George F. was a bankrupt at that time, and Tenney became one in July, 1900. George F. received his discharge prior to November 20, 1900, and on that-date Tenney received his discharge. This debt was included in their schedules.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a promissory note signed by the defendants,. George F. Willey, Nelson S. Willey, and George G. Tenney. The writ was dated May 3, 1899, and on that date the real estate of Nelson S. and Tenney was attached. George F. was a bankrupt at that time, and Tenney became one in July, 1900. George F. received his discharge prior to November 20, 1900, and on that-date Tenney received his discharge. This debt was included in their schedules. They pleaded their discharge as a defence to this action, and the defendant Nelson S. offered to show by the testimony of George F. and Tenney that the…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
Upon the facts as stated in the case the exception must be overruled. The mere fact that the bankrupts have obtained their discharges does not conclusively show that they are-nominal parties. The case was not dismissed as to them. They still remain parties to the action, and may be interested in some- issue developed during tbe course of tbe trial, as, for instance, tbe issue of a new promise since their discharge. Jenks v. Opp, 43 Ind. 108; Oatis v. Harrison, 60 Ga. 535. The case does not disclose what the pleadings were, if there were any, or what reply the plaintiff made to the plea of a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jenks v. OppIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
- Oatis v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1878
3Cited by1 opinion
- Culbertson v. Salinger & BrighamSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906