Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1874

Zimmer v. Schleehauf

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided March 23, 1874 · Gray

115 Mass. 52; 1874 Mass. LEXIS 145

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Miller (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts 1990)
Cohen v. Toy Gun Manufacturing Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1912)
Henriques v. Vinhaca (Haw. 1911)
Sperry v. Cook (Mo. Ct. App. 1909)
In re Van Orden (District Court, D. New Jersey 1899)
Maysville Street Railroad & Transfer Co. v. Marvin (6th Cir. 1893)
Powell v. Oregonian Ry. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon 1888)
Child v. Boston & Fairhaven Iron Works (Mass. 1884)
In re Boston & Fairhaven Iron-Works (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1884)
In re Lachemeyer (District Court, S.D. New York 1878)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Gray, C. J.

The bankrupt act of 1867, c. 176, § 19, declares, that no debts, other than those therein specified, shall be proved against the bankrupt’s estate. The plaintiff’s claim does not come within either of the specified classes. It is conceded that it was not “ a debt existing at the time of the adjudication of bankruptcy,” because a claim for damages in an action of tort *53does not become a debt by verdict before judgment. It was not a demand for or on account of goods taken or withheld, nor a liability upon any contract. The only “ contingent debts and contingent liabilities ” allowed to be proved are those “ contracted by the bankrupt.” The plaintiff’s cause of action did not arise out of any contract, or any injury to property, but out of a personal tort. It was therefore not provable under the bankrupt act, and the provision of § 21 for a stay of proceedings has no application. Exceptions overruled.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.