Kenney v. Brown

1 N.E. 547, 139 Mass. 345, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 101
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 8, 1885·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

The letters of the defendant to the plaintiff’s intestate set forth in the bill of exceptions are not sufficient evidence of a new contract which deprives the defendant of the benefit of his discharge in insolvency. They refer to his insolvency, express his desire to pay all his debts, and his hope and trust that he will be able to pay the debt of the plaintiff’s intestate in the future, speak of partial payments, and express regret that he is not able to do more ; but they do not contain language which amounts to a clear and unequivocal promise to pay the whole debt, or an undertaking which is inconsistent with a reliance upon his discharge. The cases of Elwell v. Cumner, 136 Mass. 102, and Bigelow v. Norris, ante, 12, are decisive of the case at bar. Exceptions overruled.

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

Kenney v. Brown, 1 N.E. 547, 139 Mass. 345, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 101 (Mass. 1885).

1 N.E. 547 (Kenney v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mechanics' & Farmers' Savings Bank v. Katterjohn
125 S.W. 1071 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1910)
Glidden v. Chamberlin
46 N.E. 103 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Jacobs v. Carpenter
36 N.E. 676 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1894)