Heim v. Chapman
Decision Date | 23 May 1898 |
Parties | HEIM v. CHAPMAN. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
R.A. Hopkins, for plaintiff.
Chas. C. Paine, for defendant.
The sole question in this case is whether the intentional omission of the plaintiff's name by the defendant from the schedule of his creditors in the bankruptcy proceedings, and the payment by the defendant to the plaintiff on the note during their pendency, prevents the defendant from setting up the discharge as a bar. The only respect in which this case differs from other cases in which a similar question has been considered by this court consists in the fact of the payment. See Fuller v. Pease, 144 Mass. 390, 11 N.E. 694; Kempton v. Saunders, 130 Mass. 236; Black v. Blazo, 117 Mass. 17; Way v. Howe, 108 Mass. 502. But that did not constitute a new promise in writing, within Gen.St. c. 105, § 3, nor Pub.St. c. 78, § 3, which were then in force. Jacobs v. Carpenter, 161 Mass. 16, 36 N.E. 676. And the fact that the payment may have been made with fraudulent intent does not avoid the discharge. Fuller v. Pease, supra. Judgment for the defendant.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Needham v. Matthewson
... ... Bayley, 55 Mass. 77; Lawrence et al. v ... Harrington, 122 N.Y. 408, 25 N.E. 406; Jacobs v ... Carpenter, 161 Mass. 16, 36 N.E. 676; Heim v ... Chapman, 171 Mass. 347, 50 N.E. 529; Stark v ... Stinson, 23 N.H. 259; Cambridge Institution for ... Savings v. Littlefield, 60 Mass. 210; ... ...
-
Nathan v. Leland
...United Society in Canterbury v. Winkley, ubisupra; Jacobs v. Carpenter, 161 Mass. 19, 20, 36 N.E. 676 and cases cited; Heim v. Chapman, 171 Mass. 347, 50 N.E. 529. But having obtained a discharge the defendant was from any further liability on a debt which was provable, unless his letters c......
- Faulkner v. Manchester Fire Assur. Co.
- Cunningham v. Seavey