Pierce v. Gilkey
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Pupke v. Churchill (Mo. Ct. App. 1884)
- Whittemore v. Stephens (Mich. 1882)
- Home National Bank v. Carpenter (Mass. 1880)
- Farwell v. Raddin (Mass. 1880)
- In re Bayly (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana 1879)
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
It is unnecessary to consider whether the composition between Gilkey and his creditors covered his partnership as well as his individual debts, because, even if it did, yet, the amount of the composition not having been paid or tendered to the plaintiff, and he not having waived such payment or tender, nor taken any part in the proceedings for a composition, he was not barred of his action. Edwards v. Coombe, L. R. 7 C. P. 519. In re Hatton, L. R. 7 Ch. 723. Ex parte Peacock, L. R. 8 Ch. 682. Goldney v. Lording, L. R. 8 Q. B. 182. Newell v. Van Praagh, L. R. 9 C. P. 96. National Mount Wollaston Bank v. Porter, 122 Mass. 308. Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.