Court Opinion

ID: 7345425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-26 00:48:23.174972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:20:19.265309
License: Public Domain

The Court (opinion by Miller, J.),
citing Tiffany v. Lucas, 15 Wall. 410; S. C., 8 Bankr. Reg. 49; Thrasher v. Bentley, reported at p. 39 of this vol.; Cook v. Rogers, 31 Mich. 391; Beck v. Parker, 65 Pa. St. 262; S. C., 3 Am. R. 625; Hawkins’ Appeal, 34 Conn. 548; Sedgwick v. Place, 1 Bankr. Reg. 204, 673; Langley v. Perry, 2 Id. 597; Mayer v. Hillman, 91 U. S. (1 Otto) 496; Smith v. Teutonia Ins. Co., 4 Chicago L. N. 130; In re Kintzing, 3 Bankr. Reg. 217; and disapproving (or distinguishing as founded partly on lack of evidence' of good faith), Foster v. Hackley, 2 Bankr. Reg. 406; Re Smith, 4 Ben. 1; S. C., 3 Bankr. Reg. 377; Re Goldschmidt, 3 Ben. 379; S. C., 3 Bankr. Reg. 165; Spicer v. Ward, 3 Id. 512; Randall v. Sunderland, 3 Id. 18; Re Wells, 3 Id. 371; Re Reid, 1 Dill. 439; Hardy v. Bininger, 7 Blatchf. 262; S. C., 4 Bankr. Reg. 262; held as above.*
Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide event.

 Will probably be reported in 64 N. Y.