Schwartz v. Drinkwater
Decision Date | 12 December 1879 |
Citation | 70 Me. 409 |
Parties | JOHN C. SCHWARTZ v. DAVID G. DRINKWATER. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
ON EXCEPTIONS, from the superior court for Cumberland county.
ASSUMPSIT on account annexed for $250.82. Writ dated February 20, 1877 entered March term, 1877. At the October term 1878, defendant suggested his insolvency, filed a motion setting forth said insolvency, and moved that said suit be stayed to await the result of said insolvency proceedings. Said action was continued from term to term till May term, 1879, when the court denied said motion, and ruled that the suggestion of insolvency by defendant did not operate as a stay of proceedings as prayed for in said motion. Whereupon the defendant alleged exceptions.
H C. Peabody, for the plaintiff.
P. J Larrabee, for the defendant.
The defendant, being in insolvency, and having had some delay of this suit on that account, moves for a further stay of proceedings until his petition in the court of insolvency has been disposed of. Under the late bankrupt law a stay of proceedings for a reasonable time was a matter of right whether the discharge sought to be obtained in bankruptcy would be pleadable to the pending action or not. The object was to prevent a bankrupt being needlessly hampered and embarrassed by the calls of different courts at the same time. Bankrupt Act, § 5106. Bump's notes thereto. Ray v. Wright, 119 Mass. 426. The insolvent act of this state contains no such provision. Section 47 (act of 1878) does not apply here. Therefore whether the motion should be granted or not was for the judge to determine as a matter of discretion. His ruling, unless some palpable error was committed, could not be reviewed here. Barker v. Haskell, 9 Cush. 218. Undoubtedly a court of bankruptcy or insolvency might enjoin a creditor against pressing his debtor in another court, under circumstances calling for its interposition.
In this case the insolvent debtor has no cause of complaint anywhere. The suit was commenced before the insolvent law was passed. His discharge, if obtained, could not be pleaded in bar thereto. We notice that section 45 of the act of 1878 provides that a discharge shall be a bar to all the insolvent's provable liabilities. But so far as it bears upon debts existing before the law was passed, thus impairing the obligation of a contract, it is unconstitutional and void. It is too late to regard this an arguable...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kirkman v. Bird
...the debtor's future earnings and property from liability. Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 118; Bank v. Smith, 6 Wheat. 131; Schwartz v. Drinkwater, 70 Me. 409. State insolvent laws which stay all proceedings and exempt future acquisitions during the stay. Bank v. Squires, 58 Am. Dec. 682......
-
McDonough v. Blossom
...are to the contrary, where there has been a clear abuse of the discretion to the prejudice of the moving party. As stated in Schwartz v. Drinkwater, 70 Me. 409, which was a case in which exception was taken to the refusal of the court to continue the action: "Therefore whether the motion sh......
-
Charlesworth v. Am. Express Co.
...is reviewable when some palpable error has been committed, or when an apparent injustice has been done, but not otherwise. Schwartz v. Drinkwater, 70 Me. 409; Goodwin v. Prime, 92 Me. 355, 42 Atl. 785; Fitch v. Sidelinger, 96 Me. 70, 51 Atl. 241; Graffam v. Cobb, 98 Me. 200. 56 Atl. 645; Mc......
-
Appeal of Cole from the Decree of County Comm'rs.
...may be rejected. Allen v. Louisiana, 103 U. S. 80; Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80; Packard v. Lewiston, 55 Me. 456; Schwartz v. Drinkwater, 70 Me. 409; Fisher v. McGirr, 1 Gray, 24. In what we have said we do not mean to bold that the second section is in conflict with the constitution. ......