Lee v. Wells
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Petition in equity to this court, under St. 1838, c. 163, § 18, by a creditor of Daniel Strong of Springfield, to set aside proceedings in insolvency under a warrant issued by the judge of probate and insolvency for the county of Hampden, upon a petition of Strong for the benefit of the insolvent laws, which was received by the judge and the warrant issued by him at Boston in the county of Suffolk; for which reason, before the return of the warrant at the first meeting of…
Read the full summary
Petition in equity to this court, under St. 1838, c. 163, § 18, by a creditor of Daniel Strong of Springfield, to set aside proceedings in insolvency under a warrant issued by the judge of probate and insolvency for the county of Hampden, upon a petition of Strong for the benefit of the insolvent laws, which was received by the judge and the warrant issued by him at Boston in the county of Suffolk; for which reason, before the return of the warrant at the first meeting of creditors, the present petitioner moved to dismiss the proceedings in insolvency; and the judge found the facts above…
1Opinion of the CourtHoar, J.
The court are all of opinion that the acts of a judge of probate and insolvency, done out of the county for which he is commissioned, in receiving the petition of an insolvent debtor, deciding that the facts therein recited are true, and thereupon directing a warrant to issue against his estate, are *460unauthorized by law, and not a valid foundation for subsequent proceedings in the settlement and disposal of the insolvent's estate. His authority and jurisdiction are limited to that county. The truth of the averment in the petition, that the debts due from the petitioner amount to the sum…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jackson ex dem. Wyckoff v. HumphreyNew York Supreme Court · 1806
- Jackson ex rel. Walsh v. ColdenNew York Supreme Court · 1825