Huffman v. Hulbert

13 Wend. 377
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1835
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 13 Wend. 377 (Huffman v. Hulbert) 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
Huffman v. Hulbert, 13 Wend. 377 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1835).

Opinion

By the Court,

Nelson, J.

I perceive no objection to the charge of the circuit judge. Solvency, in the sense in which it is used, as applicable to the principle of law referred to by the judge, means something more than an ability to pay at the option of the debtor; it means that the debtor is in such a condition that the demand may be collected out of his property by due course of law. Any thing short of this would destroy the justice, and consequently the soundness of the rule which is founded upon the assumption that the debt is clearly collectable by suit. It is upon this ground only it can be defended. As the surety has the right to take up the note, and prosecute for hi- own benefit, he should be required to bring himself strictly and fully within the principle.. If insolvency means the inability of a man, from resources belonging to him and within his control, to pay his debts, and which is its !iteral interpretation, then the evidence was abundant, to show that t 'e •/ rincipal was insolvent at the time, the request :o sue was made. Ability to raise money upon credit for the pay[379]*379mant of debts, and salvency within the meaning of this rule, are very different things.

The question of extension of- time of payment, by a valid and binding agreement, was fairly submitted to the jury, and their verdict is conclusive, upon the facts of the case.

New trial denied.

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

Related

Buffalo Savings Bank v. Threeinwon Realty Corp.
175 Misc. 807 (New York Supreme Court, 1940)
Jackson v. Huey
78 Tenn. 184 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1882)
Maier v. Canavan
8 Daly 272 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1879)
Kohler v. Mattlage
10 Jones & S. 247 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1877)
Kirtz v. Spaugh
1 Wilson 267 (Indiana Super. Ct., 1873)
Dunham v. Countryman
66 Barb. 268 (New York Supreme Court, 1873)
Shepard v. Phears
35 Tex. 763 (Texas Supreme Court, 1872)
Smith v. Rice
27 Mo. 505 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1858)
Nicholson v. Wilborn & McWhorter
13 Ga. 467 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1853)
Schroeppel v. Shaw
5 Barb. 580 (New York Supreme Court, 1849)
Herrick v. Borst
4 Hill & Den. 650 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1843)
Fairchild v. Case
24 Wend. 380 (New York Supreme Court, 1840)
Frye v. Barker
21 Mass. 382 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1826)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 Wend. 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huffman-v-hulbert-nysupct-1835.