James P. Ray &Amp; Others v. Edwin D. Wight &Amp; Another, &Amp; Trustees
| Decision Date | 10 January 1876 |
| Citation | 119 Mass. 426 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | James P. Ray & others v. Edwin D. Wight & another, & trustees |
Argued November 10, 1875
Suffolk. Contract against the acceptors of a draft for $ 2500, made by the Waterville Manufacturing Company, payable four months after date, and dated September 3, 1873. Writ dated January 20, 1874, and served on the trustees on the same day. The trustees admitted funds of the defendants in their hands to the amount of $ 1164, and they were in December, 1874, charged as trustees. The defendants appeared and filed an answer, alleging that they had been on November 7, 1875, adjudicated bankrupts, and that sufficient time had not elapsed for them to obtain their discharge, and praying that this suit should be stayed to await the determination of the court in bankruptcy, on the question of their discharge.
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Putnam, J., without a jury, it appeared that the defendants had been adjudicated bankrupts, as alleged in their answer; and it was admitted that sufficient time had not elapsed in the proceedings in bankruptcy for them to obtain their discharge, and that there had been no unreasonable delay on their part in endeavoring to obtain it. It was also admitted that the plaintiffs' debt was under the bankrupt act provable in the proceedings in bankruptcy. The defendants contended that this suit should be stayed to await the determination of the court of bankruptcy on the question of their discharge, as provided in the bankrupt act, and filed a motion to that effect; but the judge refused to stay the same, and ordered judgment for the plaintiffs for the whole amount of the acceptance, "such judgment only to be enforced against the property attached on the writ in the hands of the trustees, but not to be enforced against the person of the defendants, or either of them, or any other property." The defendants alleged exceptions.
Exceptions sustained.
C. T Russell, for the defendants.
R Stone, Jr., for the plaintiffs.
A creditor who has brought his action more than four months before the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, and has made an attachment which is not dissolved by such proceedings, may doubtless, after the question of the bankrupt's discharge has been determined by the United States court, have a special judgment against the property attached, even if a certificate of discharge has been granted to the bankrupt. Davenport v. Tilton, 10 Met. 320. Bates v. Tappan, 99 Mass. 376. Stockwell v. Silloway, 113 Mass. 382. Johnson v. Collins, 116 Mass. 392. Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 612. Doe v. Childress, 21 Wall. 642, 646.
But the bankrupt act expressly provides that "no creditor whose debt is provable under this act shall be allowed to prosecute to final judgment any suit at law or in equity therefor against the bankrupt, until the question of the debtor's discharge shall have been determined; and any such suit or proceedings shall upon the application of the bankrupt, be stayed to await the determination of the court in bankruptcy on the question of the discharge," unless in case of unreasonable delay on the part of the bankrupt in endeavoring to obtain his certificate, or of proceeding, for the purpose of ascertaining the amount due, to a merely formal judgment, upon which no execution can...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wells v. Edmison
...suffered to be rendered.” This decision is followed and approved in later cases in the same court. Cutter v. Evans, 115 Mass. 27;Ray v. Wight, 119 Mass. 426. In Boynton v. Ball, 105 Ill. 627, the same conclusion was reached in the circuit, appellate, and supreme court upon the question here......
-
Wells v. Edmison
...judgment therein prevented, is no longer an open question. Rev. St. U.S. § 5106; Hill v. Harding, 107 U.S. 631; S. C. 2 S.Ct. 404; Ray v. Wight, 119 Mass. 426; Page v. Cole, 123 Mass. 93. But no such having been made, that court retained complete jurisdiction, and could properly proceed to ......
-
Hill v. Harding
...* Metcalf's Case, 2 Ben. 78; Rosenberg's Case, 3 Ben. 14; Penny v. Taylor, 10 N. B. R. 200; Whitney's Case, 18 N. B. R. 563; Ray v. Wight, 119 Mass. 426; Clinton Nat. Bank v. Taylor, 120 Mass. 124; Towne v. Rice, 122 Mass. 67; Page v. Cole, 123 Mass. 93; Seavey v. Beckler, 128 Mass. 471; Mc......
-
Reining v. Nevison, 38064.
...under proper circumstances, even after judgment, it might be made the foundation for setting it aside and admitting the defense. Ray v. Wight, 119 Mass. 426 ;Page v. Cole, 123 Mass. 93;Golden v. Blaskopf, 126 Mass. 523. Nothing of the kind was attempted. The question before the Massachusett......