Zimmer v. Schleehauf

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Zimmer v. Schleehauf

115 Mass. 52, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 145

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 23, 1874

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 115 Mass. 52 (Zimmer v. Schleehauf) 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.

Bluebook

Zimmer v. Schleehauf, 115 Mass. 52, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 145 (Mass. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The bankrupt act of 1867, c. 176, § 19, declares, that no debts, other than those therein specified, shall be proved against the bankrupt’s estate. The plaintiff’s claim does not come within either of the specified classes. It is conceded that it was not “ a debt existing at the time of the adjudication of bankruptcy,” because a claim for damages in an action of tort [53]*53does not become a debt by verdict before judgment. It was not a demand for or on account of goods taken or withheld, nor a liability upon any contract. The only “ contingent debts and contingent liabilities ” allowed to be proved are those “ contracted by the bankrupt.” The plaintiff’s cause of action did not arise out of any contract, or any injury to property, but out of a personal tort. It was therefore not provable under the bankrupt act, and the provision of § 21 for a stay of proceedings has no application. Exceptions overruled.

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

Gray, C. J.

The bankrupt act of 1867, c. 176, § 19, declares, that no debts, other than those therein specified, shall be proved against the bankrupt’s estate. The plaintiff’s claim does not come within either of the specified classes. It is conceded that it was not “ a debt existing at the time of the adjudication of bankruptcy,” because a claim for damages in an action of tort [53]*53does not become a debt by verdict before judgment. It was not a demand for or on account of goods taken or withheld, nor a liability upon any contract. The only “ contingent debts and contingent liabilities ” allowed to be proved are those “ contracted by the bankrupt.” The plaintiff’s cause of action did not arise out of any contract, or any injury to property, but out of a personal tort. It was therefore not provable under the bankrupt act, and the provision of § 21 for a stay of proceedings has no application. Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 Mass. 52, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zimmer-v-schleehauf-mass-1874.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack