Pierce v. Gilkey
This text of 124 Mass. 300 (Pierce v. Gilkey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It is unnecessary to consider whether the composition between Gilkey and his creditors covered his partnership as well as his individual debts, because, even if it did, yet, the amount of the composition not having been paid or tendered to the plaintiff, and he not having waived such payment or tender, nor taken any part in the proceedings for a composition, he was not barred of his action. Edwards v. Coombe, L. R. 7 C. P. 519. In re Hatton, L. R. 7 Ch. 723. Ex parte Peacock, L. R. 8 Ch. 682. Goldney v. Lording, L. R. 8 Q. B. 182. Newell v. Van Praagh, L. R. 9 C. P. 96. National Mount Wollaston Bank v. Porter, 122 Mass. 308. Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
124 Mass. 300, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-v-gilkey-mass-1878.