Ludlow v. Hackett
New York Supreme Court
THE defendant was' arrested in May, 1819, at the suit of the plaintiff, for 2,000 dollars ; and in July following, was regularly discharged, under the act to abolish imprisonment for debt, in certain cases, passed April 7, 1819. (sess. 42. 101.) After the discharge, the attorney for the plaintiff entered the default of the defendant for not pleading, and af-terwards entered an interlocutory judgment, and had the damages assessed, on a.writ of inquiry.
Read the full summary
THE defendant was' arrested in May, 1819, at the suit of the plaintiff, for 2,000 dollars ; and in July following, was regularly discharged, under the act to abolish imprisonment for debt, in certain cases, passed April 7, 1819. (sess. 42. 101.) After the discharge, the attorney for the plaintiff entered the default of the defendant for not pleading, and af-terwards entered an interlocutory judgment, and had the damages assessed, on a.writ of inquiry. The inquest was set aside in May term with costs, on the ground that the damages assessed wereona partnership account of the plaintiff and one…
1Per curiam
In Heffernan v. Brown, we decided, at the last term, that where a defendant obtains a discharge under the act giving relief in cases of imprisonment, the plaintiff might discontinue his suit without costs, in the same manner as if the defendant had been discharged from all his debts under the insolvent act. If the plaintiff, knowing of the defendant’s discharge, will, nevertheless, go on with the suit, he must, if he afterwards discontinues, pay costs. Let the plaintiff have leave to discontinue his suit on payment of the costs of suit since the defendant obtained his discharge under the late…
2Cited by3 opinions
- De Barante v. DeyermandNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Hyde v. Van ValkenburghNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1865
- Ludington v. BellThe Superior Court of New York City · 1879