Pierce v. Gilkey

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Pierce v. Gilkey, 124 Mass. 300 (Mass. 1878)
1878 Mass. LEXIS 299
Gbay

Pierce v. Gilkey

Opinion of the Court

Gbay, O. J.

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.

Reference

Full Case Name
Amos Pierce v. Royal Gilkey & another
Cited By
6 cases
Status
Published