Case ID: pr_41/html/0937-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Mr. Justice Hutchison", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

E. Solé & Co., S. en C., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. José Claudio, Defendant and Appellant.
    No. 4942.
    Argued February 6, 1931.
    Decided March 18, 1931.
    
      C. del Toro Fernández for ,appellant. Oscar Souffront for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Hutchison

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant’s first contention is that the confirmation of a composition entered into by a bankrupt with his creditors (notwithstanding the opposition of one of such creditors, who subsequently accepted a pro-rata payment) released the sureties of the said bankrupt from all liability for the unpaid balance of an obligation held by the opposing creditor; plaintiff herein. The district court did not err in deciding; this question adversely to appellant. 7 C. J. 346, sec. 598; Easton Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. Caminez, 146 App. Div. 436; Stauffer, Eshleman Co. v. Abington Hardware & F. Co., 131 La. 715; Myers v. International Trust Co., 273 U. S. 380.

The second contention of appellant raises a question of novation.

As developed by the pleadings and proof it was primarily a question of intention and of fact. We find no such manifest error in the weighing of the evidence on this point as to require a reversal.

The judgment appealed from must be affirmed.