Horton v. Hicks

New York Supreme Court

Horton v. Hicks

12 Johns. 341

DecidedOctober 15, 1815

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Johns. 341 (Horton v. Hicks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Horton v. Hicks, 12 Johns. 341 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1815).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We decided, in the Case of Dey v. Lovett and Others, assignees of Richards Coit, that the act did not extend to costs of suits instituted by the insolvent before his discharge; and, on the same principle of construction, it is equally clear, that it does not apply to suits brought by creditors against the insolvent before his assignment or discharge. The words of the act, “ all costs of suit,” mean only the costs of suits brought by or against the assignee or assignees of the insolvent. There is no reason or justice in giving the prosecuting creditor any advantage oyer the other creditors. The act does not intend" to encourage suits against insolvents. Its object, in this sec? tian, is merely.to indemnify the assignees for all the costs, charges, and expenses of all suits brought by’ or against them, or necessarily incurred by them in the execution of their tryst. ‘

Rule granted,

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

Per Curiam,

We decided, in the Case of Dey v. Lovett and Others, assignees of Richards Coit, that the act did not extend to costs of suits instituted by the insolvent before his discharge; and, on the same principle of construction, it is equally clear, that it does not apply to suits brought by creditors against the insolvent before his assignment or discharge. The words of the act, “ all costs of suit,” mean only the costs of suits brought by or against the assignee or assignees of the insolvent. There is no reason or justice in giving the prosecuting creditor any advantage oyer the other creditors. The act does not intend" to encourage suits against insolvents. Its object, in this sec? tian, is merely.to indemnify the assignees for all the costs, charges, and expenses of all suits brought by’ or against them, or necessarily incurred by them in the execution of their tryst. ‘

Rule granted,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Johns. 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horton-v-hicks-nysupct-1815.