Case ID: day_1/html/0136-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the whole Court,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Barber v. Minturn.
    In the Court below,
    Benjamin G. Minturn, and John T. Champein, ci the City of New-York, Plaintiffs ; Oliver Barber, George W. Barber, Aaron Hosford, of Weth-ersfield, Oliver Goodrich, and Aaron Hosford, of Hartford, Defendants.
    
    In an action on note against several copart-ners, itfis not a good defence for one of them, that he executed the note in the co-partnership name, after the suit was instituted, and with a view’to secure to the attaching- creel-itor the property attached, without the knowledge of the others,
    xln act of insolvency bv the legislature of this State, discharging the insolvent from all his debts, may be pleaded in barol an action on a contract entered into, in another State, with citizens of another State, to prevent judgment against the defendant generally.⅛ but if, in such case, property had been ;dl ached before the passing of the act, 1 1 cial judgment may ire rendered, and c ■ ecu - h e issue against that, property.
    ■T*HIS was an action on note, by process of attachment, service whereof was made, On the 10th of Fobru-1797, on the copartnership property of the defendants, and also on the private property of Oliver Goodrich, one of the defendants. ary
    The note purported to have been executed by the de-. fendants, in their copartnership name, on the 1st of Oc* tober, 1796, and made payable to the plaintiffs, on the ist of January, 1797.
    
    
      Oliver Barber pleaded in bar of the action, that he ex - ecuted the note declared on after the suit was instituted, and antedated it, with a view to secure to the plaintiffs, in preference to other creditors, the property attached, without the knowledge of the rest of the defendants. To this plea the plaintiffs demurred. ⅞
    
      1803.
    The other three defendants (Georq-e IF. Barber having died during the pendency of the suit) pleaded severally, that they brought their respective petitions to the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, in May, 1799, praying for acts of insolvency in their favour; that they caused service thereof to be made upon the plaintiffs, by leaving copies with Theodore Dwight, Esq. their attorney ; that the General Assembly continued said petitions to their next session in October, and ordered public notice of the pendency thereof to be given in the newspapers; that notice was accordingly given; and that in October, 1799, the General Assembly psssed, on each of said petitions, a special act of insolvency, thereby discharging these defendants^ respectively, from all their debts, whether of a copartnership, or a private, nature^ The conditions, on which these discharges were to take effect, were alleged to have been performed.
    The plaintiffs replied, that in February, 1797, they attached the propertv of the defendants, according to the indorsement of the officer on the writ, which was hold-en to respond the judgment in this suit. To this replication there was a demurrer.
    The Superior Court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, on all the issues, and granted execution against Oliver Barber, in common form, and against the other defendants, to be levied on the property attached only.
    
    The defendants brought a writ of error, and assigned the general errors.
    Edwards, (of New-Haven) and Mills, (of New-Haven) for the plaintiffs in error,
    contended,
    
      1. That the plea of Oliver Barber was sufficient, for that executing the note in this way, was not a part of the business of the copartnership, and, therefore, not binding on the other partners, and if not on all, then not on any.
    2. That by the acts of insolvency, the other defendants in the Court below were entirely discharged; and the property attached must go into the general mass for the benefit of all the creditors. The legislature, with all the facts in view, have thought proper to pass these acts, and the Courts of this State are bound to give them effect.
    
      Daggett and Dwight, for the defendants in error,
    contended,
    1. That it lay not in the mouth of Oliver Barber to make the defence, which he had set up.
    2. That by our statute, the attaching creditors obtained a lien 
      
       which they could substantiate, and thereby secure themselves against all the other creditors. It is the policy of our law to give this preference.
    
      
      
         Vide Ingraham v. Phillips, ante 117.
    
   By the whole Court,

The judgment was affirmed.