Thomas v. Hilton
Washington Territory
Appeal from District Court holding terms at Snohomish. Third District. Proceedings in insolvency. After the petitioner had prayed for his discharge, Hilton, one of the creditors, opposed the same on the ground of fraud, and filed his specification and opposition as required "by section 2033 of the Code, which was answered by a plea of not guilty.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court holding terms at Snohomish. Third District. Proceedings in insolvency. After the petitioner had prayed for his discharge, Hilton, one of the creditors, opposed the same on the ground of fraud, and filed his specification and opposition as required "by section 2033 of the Code, which was answered by a plea of not guilty. Thereupon, a jury .of six men was impaneled to try the issue, and after hearing the evidence of the contesting creditor and his witnesses, were instructed by the court, on motion of the attorneys of said insolvent, to render a verdict of not guilty…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Allyn
Plaintiff in error filed his petition as an insolvent debtor under chapter 143 of the Code, in the District Court of Snohomish county. Notice was given, and the defendant in error, as a creditor, appeared and filed his specifications in opposition to the debtor’s discharge, on the ground of fraud.
The court, on motion of plaintiff in error, under section 2033, summoned a jury of six men to decide the charge of fraud as affecting the debtor’s discharge. Under the direction of the court, and on motion of plaintiff in error, the jury returned a verdict that he was not guilty of fraud.
Several…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cruger v. . the Hudson River Railroad Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1854
3Cited by1 opinion
- Traders' Bank v. Van WagenenWashington Supreme Court · 1891