New York Court of Chancery, 1843

Pratt v. Babcock

Pratt v. Babcock
New York Court of Chancery · Decided May 3, 1843
10 Paige Ch. 295

Counsel

O. Mead, for the complainant,, H. Sheldon, for the defendant.

Pratt v. Babcock

Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor

said that where a defendant was a proper party, as one of the judgment debtors, at the time of the filing *296of the bill, and had subsequently been discharged, it was a matter of course to permit the complainant to dismiss his bill as to sucb pai'ty, if the application was made within a reasonable time after the complainant had notice of the discharge under the bankrupt act; unless the defendant would stipulate to waive the benefit of his discharge.

Order accordingly.

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