E. Solé & Co., S. en C. v. Claudio

Supreme Court of Puerto Rico

E. Solé & Co., S. en C. v. Claudio

41 P.R. 937

CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico

DecidedMarch 18, 1931

DocketNo. 4942

StatusPublished

This text of 41 P.R. 937 (E. Solé & Co., S. en C. v. Claudio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

E. Solé & Co., S. en C. v. Claudio, 41 P.R. 937 (prsupreme 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Hutchison

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant’s first contention is that the confirmation of a composition entered into by a bankrupt with his creditors (notwithstanding the opposition of one of such creditors, who subsequently accepted a pro-rata payment) released the sureties of the said bankrupt from all liability for the unpaid balance of an obligation held by the opposing creditor; plaintiff herein. The district court did not err in deciding; this question adversely to appellant. 7 C. J. 346, sec. 598; Easton Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. Caminez, 146 App. Div. 436; Stauffer, Eshleman Co. v. Abington Hardware & F. Co., 131 La. 715; Myers v. International Trust Co., 273 U. S. 380.

The second contention of appellant raises a question of novation.

As developed by the pleadings and proof it was primarily a question of intention and of fact. We find no such manifest error in the weighing of the evidence on this point as to require a reversal.

The judgment appealed from must be affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Hutchison

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant’s first contention is that the confirmation of a composition entered into by a bankrupt with his creditors (notwithstanding the opposition of one of such creditors, who subsequently accepted a pro-rata payment) released the sureties of the said bankrupt from all liability for the unpaid balance of an obligation held by the opposing creditor; plaintiff herein. The district court did not err in deciding; this question adversely to appellant. 7 C. J. 346, sec. 598; Easton Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. Caminez, 146 App. Div. 436; Stauffer, Eshleman Co. v. Abington Hardware & F. Co., 131 La. 715; Myers v. International Trust Co., 273 U. S. 380.

The second contention of appellant raises a question of novation.

As developed by the pleadings and proof it was primarily a question of intention and of fact. We find no such manifest error in the weighing of the evidence on this point as to require a reversal.

The judgment appealed from must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 P.R. 937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-sole-co-s-en-c-v-claudio-prsupreme-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack