Mechanics' Bank v. Hazard
New York Supreme Court
HOFFMAN, for the defendant, moved for leave to enter an exorelur on the bail piece, in this cause, on two grounds : 1. That the principal had been discharged under the insolVCllt cLCÍ. 2. That the plaintiff had been paid and satisfied by an endorsor 0f the same note on which the suit was brought against the principal.
Read the full summary
HOFFMAN, for the defendant, moved for leave to enter an exorelur on the bail piece, in this cause, on two grounds : 1. That the principal had been discharged under the insolVCllt cLCÍ. 2. That the plaintiff had been paid and satisfied by an endorsor 0f the same note on which the suit was brought against the principal. It appeared that the principal was the maker of a promissory note, payable to one Paiten, and by him endorsed to one Miller, who endorsed the same to the plaintiffs, and that in the suit against the / 1 t c 1 . 1 principal, as maker, an inquest was taken by default, at the last…
1Per curiam
The laches of the principal in this case precludes him from availing himself of his discharge, in the suit against him. The reason, therefore, of ordering an exoneretur on the bail piece, on the ground of the principal’s being discharged under the insolvent act, which is merely to prevent unnecessary circuity, does not apply in this case. If the bail neglect to apply in season for relief, it is at their peril. If the debt in the suit against the principal has been satisfied, that is matter which the bail must plead. The motion must be denied.
Motion denied.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Lone Star Security & Video, Inc. v. Gurrola (In Re Gurrola)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Revere Copper Co. of Boston v. . DimockNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Steward v. GreenNew York Court of Chancery · 1845
- Haggerty v. AmoryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1863
- Price v. PetersNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1862
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.