Uran v. Houdlette

36 Me. 15
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided July 1, 1853·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Howard, J.—

The note of the defendant Was merged and extinguished by the judgment. That having been rendered Upon the note, after he had filed his petition for a discharge in bankruptcy, it constitutes a debt, originating at the time, and was not provable under the commission. Consequently the discharge was no bar to the judgment, and furnishes no defence to this action. Holbrook v. Foss, 27 Maine, 441; Pike v. McDonald, 32 Maine, 418.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Shepley. C. J., and Tenney and Appleton, J. J., concurred.

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

Uran v. Houdlette, 36 Me. 15 (Me. 1853).

36 Me. 15 (Uran v. Houdlette) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Stansfield
22 F. Cas. 1061 (D. Nevada, 1877)