Case ID: me_78/html/0312-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frank M. Ross vs. Charles M. Tozier.
    Kennebec.
    Opinion June 5, 1886.
    
      Insolvent law. Judgments.
    
    ^ ^ue uPon a contract existing at tlie time of the passage of the insolvent law is not barred by a discharge under that law, notwithstanding that it passed into a judgment after the enactment of that law.
    Debt on judgment; the defense relied upon was a discharge under the insolvent law. The judgment, rendered after the passage of the insolvent law, was upon a contract liability incurred prior to the enactment of that law.
    
      Webb and Webb, for the plaintiff.
    
      Brown and Carver, for the defendant.
   Per Curiam.

It is the opinion of a majority of the justices of this court that a debt due upon a contract existing at the time of the passage of the insolvent law of this state, is not barred by a discharge under the law, notwithstanding a judgment has been obtained upon the debt in a suit commenced subsequent to the passage of the law; that to hold otherwise would conflict with the federal constitution in this, that it would impair the obligation of a contract. True, there are decisions to the contrary; but it is the opinion of a majority of the court that principle and the weight of authority are in accord with the conclusion here announced.