Uran v. Houdlette

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Uran v. Houdlette

36 Me. 15

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedJuly 1, 1853

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 36 Me. 15 (Uran v. Houdlette) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 Me. 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uran-v-houdlette-me-1853.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack