The Portland daily press., 1896-03-24
law Court Decisions.

Three interesting decisions were re-
celved yesterday from the law court
The one in violation to the act of 1898,
chap. 27S, as affecting a dischar ge in in
solvency is particularly important:
| Cum mberland County:
Edward f. Tompson. assignee. vs.. Ed
gar r. Robinson ct al
| Rescrlpt by Walton, J-It appears that
Arletta Blake has recovered a Judgment
against Edgar r. Robinson for the mod
est sum of 1926, as damages for the
breach of promise to marry her. 1t ap-
pears that in less than a month after the
recovery of the Judgment, the defendant
went into insolvency on his own petition,
and the plaintiff in the present suit was
appointed his assignee. The assignee
asks the court to declare void the con-
veyanoe of an equity Of redemption of
real estate from the insolvent to his
mother, made pending the breach of
promise suit, on the ground that it was
| fraudulent, and made especially to de-
fraud the said Arletta Blake, and pre-
vent her from levying upon the equity
OF redemption so conveyed to satisfy her
Judgment, if she should recover one, in
her then pending breach OF promise suit.
The cause was finally heard in the
court below by Mr. Justice Foster; and
he found as matter OF fact that the
conveyance was fraudulent; and ordered
the insolvent debtors mother to execute
and deliver to his assignee deed OF her
pretended title to the equity of redemp--
tlon SO conveyed to her, free and clear OF
all incum mbrances created by her. or by
persons claiming by, through, or under
her. From this decree the defendants
appealed Ts Sav. .x.m,n., t,o av,a.noa with
| care, and we cannot for a moment doubt
| that the conveyance was made for the
| express purpose ofsproteoting the granter' s
interest in the property against the
purpose, 1t WAS, of course, fraudulent
and void as against the plaintiff in that
suit, and equ ally fraudulent and void
as against the defendants assignee in
| Insolvency; and our conclusion is that
the degree of Mr.. Justice Foster in the
| court below was right, and must be
affirmed.
Decree affirmed with additional costs
| since the appeal.
| Maine Red Granite Company VS..
| George W. York.
Rescrip by Walton, 1.-THE defendant
is sued as guarautor of a debt due from
| the Machiasport Granite Company to
the Maine Red Granite Company and the
question is whether q letter written by
| the defendant to an agent of the Red
Granite Company justified that company
in delivering stone to the Machiasport
| Company on the defendants credit. We
think it did.
1t appears that the Machiasport Com.
pany received an order for some stone
which the company was unable to fill,
and that application was made to the
| Red Granite Company for assistance that
the latter company declined to deliver
stone on the credit of the Machiasport
Company, but expressed a willingness to
| do so on the credit of the defendant and
that uhereupon the defendant wrote
| letter addressed to the manager of the
Red Granite Company of the following
| tenor:
| "Dear sir-Mr Pettengan advises me
| that he is in need of about $500 worth of
Red Beach stock. Kindly fill such orders
as he may give you, and will attend to
the payment of same as they become due.
Geo. W. York, treasurer of the Machias-
port Granite Company.
| 1t is urged in defense that his letter
was not intended to bind the defendant
personally, and that the language used
will not justify such construction Of
| it. We think it will. True, he annexed
| to his signature statement of the fact
that he was treasurer of the company de-
string to obtain the goods but it is we'll
settled in this state that such an addition
to the name of the signer of an obliga-
| tion will not relieve him from personal
responsibility. 1t is the opinion of the
cation of guarantor and justified the
plaintiff company in delivering stone to
the Maohiasport Company on the defen-
dant's credit
| 1t was further claimed by the defcn-
dant that if he was liable at all, he
should not be held for more than $500
and the court was requested to so instruct
the jury. The court declined. We think
the requested instruction was properly
withheld.
Exceptions overruled.
| William Silverman ct ais vs.. Charles
e. Lessor ct al.
Rescript by Walton, 1.-The discharge
of debtor under a state insolvent law
is no bar to an action by citizen of an
other state who did not in any way be-
come party to the insolvency proceed
ings. 1t is not within the constitutional
authority of state to enact a law that
will give such an effect to an insoivenU's
discharge. And this is rule of consti-
tutional law which has already been SO
thoroughly examined and so fully dis
cussed, and is now so firmly established,
that furt her discussion of it at this
time would not only be Improbable, but
inexcusa5ly wearisome.
| The facts agreed upon in this case do
not take it out of the operation of this
rule. The defendants discharge is no bar
to the action. The Act of 1898, G. 27S,
cannot be allowed to give it such an
effect. To so construe the act would rem
der it unconstitutional. Folger VS..
Clark, 80 Maine, 237.
| Judgment for plaintiff.
|