Huffman v. Johns

6 A. 205, 3 Sadler 469, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 776
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 18, 1886·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In order to restore the legal efficacy of a debt discharged by proceedings in bankruptcy, the promise to pay must, undoubtedly, be unambiguous and explicit. But in the case in hand, as the jury has found, there was not only an absolute and unconditional promise by the defendant to pay the note in controversy, but also a partial payment. Than this there could be nothing more unequivocal, and it fully and in every particular complies with the rule for the revival of the discharged debt.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Huffman v. Johns, 6 A. 205, 3 Sadler 469, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 776 (Pa. 1886).

6 A. 205 (Huffman v. Johns) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sundling v. Willey
103 N.W. 38 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1905)