The Superior Court of New York City, 1873

Dusenbury v. Hoyt

The Superior Court of New York City · Decided April 15, 1873 · Barbour

14 Abb. Pr. 132

Counsel

D. M. Porter, for the plaintiff, appellant., Cephas Brainerd, for defendant, respondent,

Opinion of the Court

By the Court.—Barbour, Ch. J.

The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed for the reasons stated in the able opinion pronounced by Judge Freedmah upon denying the motion for a new trial. The action should have been brought upon the new *138promise, and cannot be maintained upon the note, which was annihilated as an obligation by the discharge in bankruptcy.

Howell and Yaw Yobst, JJ., concurred.

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