Heim v. Chapman

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Heim v. Chapman

50 N.E. 529, 171 Mass. 347, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 86

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 23, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 50 N.E. 529 (Heim v. Chapman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heim v. Chapman, 50 N.E. 529, 171 Mass. 347, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 86 (Mass. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Morton, J.

The sole question in this case is whether the intentional omission of the plaintiff’s name by the defendant from the schedule of his creditors in the bankruptcy proceedings, and the payment by the defendant to the plaintiff on the note during their pendency, prevents the defendant from setting up the discharge as a bar. The only respect in which this case differs from other eases in which a similar question has been considered by this court consists in the fact of the payment. See Fuller v. Pease, 144 Mass. 390; Kempton v. Saunders, 130 Mass. 236; Black v. Blazo, 117 Mass. 17; Way v. Howe, 108 Mass. 502.

But that did not constitute a new promise in writing within Gen. Sts. c. 105, § 3, now Pub. Sts. c. 78, § 3, which were then in force. Jacobs v. Carpenter, 161 Mass. 16. And the fact that the payment may have been made with fraudulent intent does not avoid the discharge. Fuller v. Pease, 144 Mass. 390.

Judgment for the defendant.

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

Morton, J.

The sole question in this case is whether the intentional omission of the plaintiff’s name by the defendant from the schedule of his creditors in the bankruptcy proceedings, and the payment by the defendant to the plaintiff on the note during their pendency, prevents the defendant from setting up the discharge as a bar. The only respect in which this case differs from other eases in which a similar question has been considered by this court consists in the fact of the payment. See Fuller v. Pease, 144 Mass. 390; Kempton v. Saunders, 130 Mass. 236; Black v. Blazo, 117 Mass. 17; Way v. Howe, 108 Mass. 502.

But that did not constitute a new promise in writing within Gen. Sts. c. 105, § 3, now Pub. Sts. c. 78, § 3, which were then in force. Jacobs v. Carpenter, 161 Mass. 16. And the fact that the payment may have been made with fraudulent intent does not avoid the discharge. Fuller v. Pease, 144 Mass. 390.

Judgment for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 N.E. 529, 171 Mass. 347, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heim-v-chapman-mass-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack