In re Madden

Decision Date19 May 1919
Citation257 F. 581
PartiesIn re MADDEN.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

Nicholas F. Perrotty and David Bobker, both of Newark, N.J., for bankrupt.

Riker &amp Riker, of Newark, N.J., for Dorothy B. Curten.

DAVIS District Judge.

The bankrupt is before this court seeking an order restraining Dorothy B. Curten from continuing supplementary proceedings in the state court on the ground that his discharge in bankruptcy released him from the liability on which the state court proceedings are based. Suit was instituted against the bankrupt in the state court by the said Dorothy B. Curten for breach of promise of marriage, on which judgment was secured against him whereupon he filed on July 5, 1918, a voluntary petition in bankruptcy in this court. He was adjudicated a bankrupt on the same day. The bankrupt was discharged on November 25 1918. His estate in bankruptcy has been administered, and the trustee was discharged on October 31, 1918. Miss Curten instituted supplementary proceedings in the state court, seeking to discover property of the bankrupt, who has applied to this court for a restraining order as aforesaid.

Section 17 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 550 (Comp. St. Sec. 9601)) provides that:

'A discharge in bankruptcy shall release a bankrupt from all of his provable debts, except such as * * * are liabilities for breach of promise of marriage accompanied by seduction.'

The complaint alleged simple breach of promise of marriage, without averring seduction. The bankrupt did not defend the case, and judgment was entered by default. On assessment of damages, the plaintiff testified that the breach of promise was accompanied by seduction. This was denied by the bankrupt, and the jury assessed the damages, without finding in terms whether or not there was seduction. Under these facts, the bankrupt contends that his discharge in bankruptcy released him from liability for the said judgment, and that he should not be subjected to supplementary proceedings in the state court.

Section 11a of the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. Sec. 9595) provides that:

'A suit which is founded upon a claim from which a discharge would be a release, and which is pending against a person at the time of the filing of a petition against him, shall be stayed until after an adjudication or the dismissal of the petition; if such person is adjudged a bankrupt, such action may be

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • In re Wright, Bankruptcy No. 79-03567
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • November 13, 1980
    ...296 F. 472 (3rd Cir. 1924); In re Havens, 272 F. 975 (2d Cir. 1921); Hellman v. Goldstone, 161 F. 913 (3rd Cir. 1908); In re Madder Madden, 257 F. 581 (D.N.J.1919); In re Weisberg, 253 F. 833 (E.D.Mich.1918); In re Boardway, 248 F. 364 (N.D.N.Y.1918); In re McCarty, 111 F. 151 (N.D.Ill.1901......
  • In re Devereaux
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • July 23, 1934
    ...was obtained and there interpose this alleged bar. In re Scheffler (C. C. A.) 68 F.(2d) 902; In re Havens (C. C. A.) 272 F. 975; In re Madden (D. C.) 257 F. 581. This procedure was followed by the bankrupt pursuant to section 150, article 6, of the Debtor and Creditor Law of the State of Ne......
  • In re Nichols
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • March 11, 1938
    ...action is pending and there interpose his alleged bar. In re Scheffler, 2 Cir., 68 F.2d 902; In re Havens, 2 Cir., 272 F. 975; In re Madden, D.C., 257 F. 581. However, the bankruptcy court should make effectual its judgments, and where a state court of limited jurisdiction ignores the judgm......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT