Saltus v. Tobias & Seaman
New York Court of Chancery
THE bill sought to charge the defendants, as administrators of J. E. Seaman, (who died intestate, and who was one of the firm of Seaman fy Rhind,) with the payment of several promissory notes, given by the firm, and upon the allegation that Rhind, the surviving partner, was insolvent, and that the defendants had sufficient assets. _ The defendants pleaded, 1st. The statute of limitations. 2d.
Read the full summary
THE bill sought to charge the defendants, as administrators of J. E. Seaman, (who died intestate, and who was one of the firm of Seaman fy Rhind,) with the payment of several promissory notes, given by the firm, and upon the allegation that Rhind, the surviving partner, was insolvent, and that the defendants had sufficient assets. _ The defendants pleaded, 1st. The statute of limitations. 2d. The discharge of Seaman, in his lifetime, and subsequently to the-giving of the notes, from all his debts, under the insolvent act of this state,.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellob.
The old books are said to abound
with instances of double pleas allowed. In Bohuns’ Cur. Can. p. 187. and Wyatt’s P. R. 328. it is stated that all or several matters pleadable in bar, as the statute of limitations, of frauds, &c. might be pleaded together. So in a MS. of Lord Jfottingham, cited by Mr. Hargrave, (1 Jurid. Arg. 482.) it seems to be implied that several pleas in bar might be pleaded at the same time.
This is, perhaps, the amount of the authorities on that side of the question, for the case of Ashurst v. Eyres, (3 Atk. 341.) is a very loose report, from which it…
2Cited by4 opinions
- The State of Rhode Island v. the State of MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1840
- Piatt v. OliverU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio · 1837
- Miller & Lux v. RickeyDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1903
- Reissner v. AnnessU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1877