In re Chapman

• Citation: 71 Vt. 868,45 A. 232
• Parties: In re CHAPMAN et al.
• Decision Date: 05 June 1899
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Vermont

45 A. 232

71 Vt. 868

In re CHAPMAN et al.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Windsor.

June 5, 1899.

Appeal in chancery, Windsor county; Taft, Chancellor.

In the matter of W. H. H. Chapman, an insolvent debtor. The court of insolvency decreed him a discharge, and E. G. White, the assignee, appealed to the court of chancery. There the appeal was heard on the report of the master and exceptions thereto, and the decree was affirmed. The assignee appeals. Affirmed.

W. W. Stickney and J. G. Sargent, for appellant.

Gilbert A. Davis, for appellee.

THOMPSON, J. This is an appeal from the decree of the court of chancery affirming the decree of the court of insolvency granting the insolvent debtor a discharge from all debts and claims which by law may be so discharged. The insolvent debtor insists that the appeal should be dismissed in this court, because V. S. §§ 2130, 2137, which provide for an appeal to the court of chancery, contain no provision for an appeal from that court to the supreme court. Chapter 102, V. S., which relates to insolvency proceedings, expressly provides when the decision of any court therein mentioned shall be final. This being so, it is clear that, when an appeal was allowed to the court of chancery, without any limitation as to the effect of its decrees, it was intended that the parties should have the same rights in that court as are allowed, by its rules of practice and the law, in other cases. This proceeding does not fall within the class of cases in which an appeal is denied by V. S. § 981, but comes within its provisions allowing an appeal. Therefore the motion to dismiss is overruled.

During the pendency of the proceedings in the court of insolvency, a suit was brought by a creditor against the insolvent debtor in the court of chancery to foreclose a mortgage given by him so long prior to the adjudication of insolvency as not to be affected by it. In that case an issue arose between the petitioner and another mortgagee whether $300 paid such mortgagee should be applied on a certain note held by him. The master finds that the insolvent debtor was improved as a witness in that case, and, in giving his testimony on the subject of the application which he directed to be made of the $300, committed perjury, with the intent to increase the value of a second mortgage held by the petitioner. The appellant claims that this disentitles the insolvent debtor to a discharge under V. S. § 2135, which enumerates what acts on the part of the...