Cadmus v. Beman

S.D. New York

Cadmus v. Beman

4 F. Cas. 977, 4 Amer. Law J. (N. S.) 333, 14 Law Rep. 451, 1851 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29

DecidedOctober 11, 1851

StatusPublished

This text of 4 F. Cas. 977 (Cadmus v. Beman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cadmus v. Beman, 4 F. Cas. 977, 4 Amer. Law J. (N. S.) 333, 14 Law Rep. 451, 1851 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1851).

Pincite

Opinion

Libel for Supplies — Defense of Discharge in Insolvency — State and Federal Courts.

1. The defendant being master of a vessel, owned in this state, and he and the libellants being residents of this city, he purchased of them supplies for the vessel on credit. He was afterwards duly discharged by a judge of tile common pleas, under the insolvent law of the state, from all his debts. He did not put the debt of the libellants on his schedule, nor is it proved that they had personal notice of his application for a discharge. Hchl, that there being no evidence of any fraudulent design, on the part of the debtor, in omitting the debt of the libellants from his schedule, that, by the law of this state, his discharge is a bar to their debt.

2. The same rule applies in the United States court, as between citizens of this state, when the debt was contracted and the discharge obtained here.

[Note. Nowhere more fully reported; opinion not now accessible.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Libel for Supplies — Defense of Discharge in Insolvency — State and Federal Courts.

1. The defendant being master of a vessel, owned in this state, and he and the libellants being residents of this city, he purchased of them supplies for the vessel on credit. He was afterwards duly discharged by a judge of tile common pleas, under the insolvent law of the state, from all his debts. He did not put the debt of the libellants on his schedule, nor is it proved that they had personal notice of his application for a discharge. Hchl, that there being no evidence of any fraudulent design, on the part of the debtor, in omitting the debt of the libellants from his schedule, that, by the law of this state, his discharge is a bar to their debt.

2. The same rule applies in the United States court, as between citizens of this state, when the debt was contracted and the discharge obtained here.

[Note. Nowhere more fully reported; opinion not now accessible.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 F. Cas. 977, 4 Amer. Law J. (N. S.) 333, 14 Law Rep. 451, 1851 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cadmus-v-beman-nysd-1851.