Case Name: Lester against Thompson and White
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1806-05
Citations: 1 Johns. 300
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lester against Thompson and White.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 300–301

Head Matter:
Lester against Thompson and White.
ON the trial of this cause, the defendants offered in Whence, their discharge under the insolvent act. It was attempted, on the part of the plaintiff, to show that the discharge was void, on account of fraud. The fact alleged in proof of the fraud, was the stating, in their account to the judge, that the plaintiff was their debtor, when, in truth, he was a considerable creditor of the defendants. The proceedings took place, before the last revision of the laws, and the fact now alleged as a fraud, does not appear to be included among those which are declared to be fraudulent by the former act, so as to render the discharge void.
A discharge tmder the insol¿hrávefastcT1 the facts set forth and cannot be avoided, except for the particular causes, or frauds specified in the statute-.
D. B. Ogden, for the plaintiff,
contended, that though this particular act was not expressly declared to be fraudulent in the statute ; yet there was no doubt that it was a fraud on the creditors, and that any act of fraud, whether specified in the act, or not, was sufficient to avoid the discharge.
Harison, contra.
If the legislature had been silent on the subject, there would be some reason for saying, that the rules of the common law «about fraud would be applicable : But where the legislature have undertaken to specify the particular acts or frauds, which shall render the discharge void, the statute is conclusive, and you cannot inquire into any other frauds than those enumerated. The maxim in this case is, Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. It is true, that in the revised laws, a clause has been inserted which meets the present case; but this shows the opinion of the framers of this law, that the for-. ... , V1 ., mer act did not embrace a case like the present..
Greenleaf's edition of the Laws of N. Y. vol 1, p. 208, 11th section of the act.
Vol. 1, page 434, sect. 12.

Opinion:
Per curiam.
The discharge is conclusive as to the facts-stated in. it, except as to those particular acts or frauds expressed in the eleventh section of the statute. The fact now alleged is not one of those mentioned. The plaintiff should have contested this question before the judge, before the discharge was granted : he is nqw too late in his objection, and is precluded by his own default, from con-r L v Í . A testing the validity of the discharge on that ground.
Judgment for the defendants.