Pattee v. Paige
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, upon a promissory note for $808.91, dated September 16,1887, signed by Paige and Gove, and made payable on demand to the order of the plaintiff. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the plaintiff, — execution to issue against the goods and estates of the defendants, but not against their bodies, — to this court, on appeal, upon agreed facts, the material parts of which appear in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Contract, upon a promissory note for $808.91, dated September 16,1887, signed by Paige and Gove, and made payable on demand to the order of the plaintiff. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the plaintiff, — execution to issue against the goods and estates of the defendants, but not against their bodies, — to this court, on appeal, upon agreed facts, the material parts of which appear in the opinion. The case was submitted on the briefs to all the judges.
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
It is well settled and familiar that a non-resident creditor is not barred of his claim by a discharge in insolvency granted here, unless he has come in and submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Phœnix National Bank v. Batcheller, 151 Mass. 589. If he thus comes in and proves his claim and takes a dividend, or if he accepts the sum offered under composition proceedings, he is held to have waived this right of objection. Murray v. Roberts, 150 Mass. 353. Eustis v. Bolles, 146 Mass. 413; S. C. 150 U. S. 361.
In the present case there were two firms, Paige and Gove, and Crosby,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Eustis v. BollesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Eustis v. BollesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Franklin County National Bank v. First National BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Phoenix National Bank of Providence v. BatchellerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- In re StevensDistrict Court, D. California · 1870
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. NashSupreme Court of Alabama · 1897
- King Packing Co. v. Reconstruction Finance CorporationEmergency Court of Appeals · 1952