Court Opinion

ID: 6427607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 12:05:19.995722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:52:03.633217
License: Public Domain

Barker, J.
By the execution of the bond of March 29,1898, to Aug, in which the present plaintiff was a surety for the present defendant, the latter incurred an obligation to the present plaintiff to reimburse him any amount which he might be compelled as surety to pay upon the bond. This obligation was in force when on February 13, 1900, the present defendant’s petition in bankruptcy was filed. It was an obligation founded upon an implied contract, and it was evidenced by an instrument in writing, and in one sense it was a fixed liability. But •no debt was absolutely owing at the time of the,petition. The obligation was contingent upon the happening of a breach of the bond and a payment by the surety. The payment by the surety was not until June 12, 1900, and there seems to have been no breach of the bond before that date. Therefore neither the obligee in the bond nor the surety could prove in the bankruptcy proceedings a claim founded upon the bond unless merely contingent claims are provable under the bankruptcy act of 1898. The ultimate decision of that question is yet to be made by the Supreme Court of the United States. But in Morgan v. Wordell, 178 Mass. 350, this court assumed that such claims, were not provable under the act, and we follow that view in the present case.

Exceptions sustained.