Titus v. Hobart
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
Assumpsit on a promissory note, dated at New York on the 27th of September, 1827, whereby the defendant [Enoch Hobart) promised the plaintiffs, by their partnership name of Titus & Hicks, to pay them $568.85, in six months after date. The declaration also contained the usual money counts. The ease came before the court, by the consent of parties, upon a question what judgment ought to be rendered upon the following facts.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a promissory note, dated at New York on the 27th of September, 1827, whereby the defendant [Enoch Hobart) promised the plaintiffs, by their partnership name of Titus & Hicks, to pay them $568.85, in six months after date. The declaration also contained the usual money counts. The ease came before the court, by the consent of parties, upon a question what judgment ought to be rendered upon the following facts. The note was given in New York by the defendant, then an inhabitant of New" York, to the plaintiffs [William A. Titus and another], then merchants in New York. It was not…
1Opinion of the Court
STORY, Circuit Justice.
This case differs from that of Hinkley v. Marean [Case No. 6,523], in one circumstance only, and that is, that both of the parties were citizens of New York at the time of the discharge and certificate granted to the insolvent. There is no pretence to say, that the insolvent act of New York operates a discharge .or dissolution of the contract. It purports to do no more than discharge the person from imprisonment for antecedent debts. Now, nothing is better settled, than that the effect of such a discharge is purely local. It is addressed to the courts of the state,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Lodge v. PhelpsNew York Supreme Court · 1799
- Wilson v. Matthews, Finley & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1858
- Judd v. PorterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1831