Yates's Adm'rs. v. Hollingsworth
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from B'altimdre county court. If was an áctioig °* ass^(mPs'^ broúgíit by the appellee against the appellants* was taken for the plaintiff, subject to' the opinion C0lirf:> oil the following frets, viz.
Read the full summary
Appeal from B'altimdre county court. If was an áctioig °* ass^(mPs'^ broúgíit by the appellee against the appellants* was taken for the plaintiff, subject to' the opinion C0lirf:> oil the following frets, viz. The plaintiff in Juty 1303, lent to Yates, the defendant’s intestate, gi'ÓOO, and Yates, soon after,, in the course of the same year, became bankrupt, and was discharged under the statute of' of the United States, and iu pursuance of that statute, transferred his property to assignees regularly appointed according to its provisions,? No dividend was ever made by said assignees among the…
1Opinion of the CourtEarle, J.
A promise to pay after bankruptcy, waives the discharge, and the prior debt is a sufficient consideration for the new promise. But the new promise thus made, to charge the party, must be an express promise, and must be absolute and unconditional. If there is any thing like a condition in the promise, it must be removed by testimony, and placed on the footing of an absolute undertaking, to entitle the plaintiff to a recovery. As if the bankrupt should say, that he would pay when he was able, the plaintiff must shew an ability to pay.
Taking these principles of law for our guide, the court are…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Ingersoll v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1882
- Knight v. HouseCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1868
- Lyell v. WalbachCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1910