Case ID: hopk-ch_1/html/0010-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Orr v. Henry Post and others, trustees of the said William Orr, an absent debtor, under the act, &c.
    
    1823. Nov. 2.
    The estate of an absent debtor, which was attached under the act, having proved more than sufficient to pay all his debts, and a residue of real property remaining unsold, the trustees were decreed to convey that property without selling it, to the debtor, and were discharged of the trust.
    Mr. Boyd for the complainant.
    The bill in this case sta-
    ted that the defendants, the trustees of Orr, an absent debtor, «/under the act, entitled “ An act for relief against abscond-an¿ aj3sell^ debtors,” had paid all his debts from the proceeds of the sale of part of his estate; that a considerable real estate of the complainant remained in their hands unsold, and unnecessary to be sold for the objects of the trust; and prayed for an order or decree of this court, empowering and directing the defendants to reconvey to the debtor that part of the estate unsold.
    The defendants in their answer, admitted the facts stated in the bill, and submitted the case to the decree of the court.
   The court.

The act, 24th sess. chap. 49. sec. 17. 1st N. Y. Revised Laws, 1813, page 161, directs, “ That the “ trustees shall convert the estate of such debtor into money,” and distribute the money that shall come to their hands, among the creditors, and the surplus, if any, after all just debts and legal charges as aforesaid are satisfied, shall be paid to such debtor, or his lawful representative. The object of the statute in directing the sale of the debtor’s property, is to raise money to pay his debts. There cannot be a reason assigned why any more of the debtor’s estate should he sold than would be sufficient to discharge the demands on it. The object of the law, and the purposes of the trust, have been accomplished, in this case, by a sale of part of the debtor’s property. The law having no further claims on the property, the trustees now hold it exclusively for the defendant. They ought therefore to be directed to restore it to him, as the only person having any beneficial interest in it: and the trustees ought to be discharged from further responsibility.

Order accordingly.