Penniman v. Meigs

9 Johns. 325
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1812·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There can be no doubt but that we are bound to consider a discharge under the insolvent act of this state, as a bar to all suits brought here upon antecedent contracts, wherever made. The statute is peremptory and binding on our courts. We cannot afford the party any other or further remedy than what our laws have prescribed. It was for the wisdom of the legislature to say whether foreign contracts should be exempted from the operation of our insolvent act, but they have not made any such exception. A new trial is, therefore, granted, with costs to abide She event of the suit.

New trial granted.

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

Penniman v. Meigs, 9 Johns. 325 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1812).

9 Johns. 325 (Penniman v. Meigs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rhodes v. Borden
6 P. 850 (California Supreme Court, 1885)
McDougall v. Page
55 Vt. 187 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1882)
Godfrey Pattison & Co. v. Wilbur
10 R.I. 448 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1873)
Ritchie v. Garrison
10 Abb. Pr. 246 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1858)
Nicolls v. Rodgers
18 F. Cas. 234 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island, 1847)
Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Smith
3 Serg. & Rawle 63 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1817)