TIMOTHY L. MACE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JARED WELLS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A surety who paid a promissory note as a co-obligor with a bankrupt had a right to prove his contingent liability as a claim against the bankrupt's estate under the Bankruptcy Act of 1841, and therefore was discharged from any right of recovery against the bankrupt for amounts paid on the debt after the bankrupt's discharge. The Supreme Court reversed the Vermont court's judgment, holding that the bankrupt law's discharge provisions extended to contingent demands of sureties who could have proved their claims under the act.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McLEAN delivered the opinion of the court.
'This case is brought before the court by a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Vermont, under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789.
. Wells, as the surety of Mace, became bound in two joint and several notes, both of which were due before the passage of the bankrupt law, in August, 1841. In July, 1841, Wells paid one of these notes. Mace was discharged, under the bankrupt law, on the-22d of March, 1843. In March, ,1844, Wells paid the other note, and then sued Mace.for the recovery of the money on both notes. The facts being submitted to the county court, judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the amount of the note last paid; which judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State.
The fourth section of the bankrupt law provides that a “ dis charge and certificate, when duly granted, shall in all courts of justice be deemed a full and complete discharge of all debts, contracts, and other engagements of, such bankrupt which are provable under this act,” &c.
By the fifth section of the act, it is provided that “ all creditors whose debts are not due and payable-until a future day, all annuitants, holders of bottomry and respondentia bonds, holders of policies of insurance, sureties, indorsers,' bail, or othér persons having uncertain or contingent demands against such bankrupt, shall be permitted to come in and prove such debts or claims under this act, and shall have a right, when their debts and claims become absolute, to have the same allowed them,” &c.
Wells, as surety, was within this section, and might have proved his demand against the bankrupt. He had not paid the last note, but he was liable to pay it, as surety, and that gave him aright to prove the claim under the.,fifth section. And the fourth section declares, that from all such demands the bankrupt shall be • discharged. This is the whole case. ’ It seems to be clear of doubt. The judgment of the State court is reversed.
Order. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the State of Vermont, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Supreme Court of Vermont in this-cause be and the same is hereby reversed, with costs, and that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said Supreme Court of Vermont, for further proceedings to be had therein irr conformity to the opinion of this court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 236 U.S. 549 (U.S. 1915)…, 14 Stat. 517, 525, 529). And as the surety thus either shares or enjoys an opportunity to share in the principal’s estate, we think the discharge of the latter [*557] acquits the obligation between them incident to the relationship. Mace v. Wells, 7 How. 272, 276.; Fairbanks v. Lambert, 137 Massachusetts, 373, 374; Hayer v. Comstock, 115 Iowa, 187, 191; Post, Admr., v. Losey, 111 Indiana, 74, 80; Smith v. Wheeler, 55 App. Div. (N. Y.) 170, 171. It would be contrary to the basal spirit of the Bankrupt L…
-
In re Stanndco Developers, Inc. v. George Hoffenberg in Reorganization of Stanndco Developers, Inc., 534 F.2d 1050 (2d Cir. 1976)…y Act, 11 U.S.C. § 34, which provides that “[t]he liability of a person who is a co-debtor with, or guarantor in any manner a surety for, a bankrupt shall not be altered by the discharge of such bankrupt.” See, Mace v. Wells, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 272, 12 L.Ed. 698 (1849); Union Trust Co. of Rochester v. Willsea, 275 N.Y. 164, 9 N.E. 2d 820 (1937). Although the debtor is a named defendant in the state suit, compare In re Beck Industries, supra at 414, the basis for objection on this account is removed by modi…
-
McKENNA v. Simpson, 129 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1889)