Titus v. Kent

New York Supreme Court

Titus v. Kent

1 How. Pr. 80

DecidedFebruary 15, 1845

StatusPublished

This text of 1 How. Pr. 80 (Titus v. Kent) 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

Titus v. Kent, 1 How. Pr. 80 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1845).

Pincite

Opinion

By the court, Nelson, Chief Justice.

We are all inclined to think that the statute is broad enough to enable the nonresident debtor to contest the validity of the debts presented and claimed against him under and in pursuance of the 19th and several succeeding sections of the statute (1 R. S., p 800, i.). The propriety and justice of such a construction, if fairly within the language, is manifest. The grossest frauds and [82]*82impositions might be practiced, unless an opportunity is, in some way, afforded to contest pretended claims before the trustees. The non-resident debtor is most deeply interested in the question. Mandamus allowed.

Rule accordingly.

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

By the court, Nelson, Chief Justice.

We are all inclined to think that the statute is broad enough to enable the nonresident debtor to contest the validity of the debts presented and claimed against him under and in pursuance of the 19th and several succeeding sections of the statute (1 R. S., p 800, i.). The propriety and justice of such a construction, if fairly within the language, is manifest. The grossest frauds and [82]*82impositions might be practiced, unless an opportunity is, in some way, afforded to contest pretended claims before the trustees. The non-resident debtor is most deeply interested in the question. Mandamus allowed.

Rule accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 How. Pr. 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/titus-v-kent-nysupct-1845.