Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Johns. Cas. 137

In re M'Kinley

New York Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1799

New York Supreme Court · decided 1799-07-15

Monro, endorsee, of a bill of exchange drawn by M’Kinley & Co., sued out an attachment against them as *absent debtors, under the act “ giving relief against [*138] absent and absconding debtors,” passed the 4th April, 1786, and a vessel belonging to them was seized under the attachment.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1799-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 1884

7 state decisions

101799180018101820183018401850186018701880decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Although a payment may be equivalent to giving the security required by the 23d section of the act, in order to obtain a. supersedeas, as was insisted on in the argument ; yet it must be a payment by the principal himself, and not by his surety, or one collaterally responsible to the creditor. The 23d section expressly provides, that the security shall be given for the benefit of all the creditors. As the endorser,, therefore, who paid the money, must be considered as a creditor, he has a right to avail himself of this attachment, and Munro may be considered as a trustee for his benefit. Besides, if the person who has sued out the attachment has been paid his debt, and the absent debtors wish to avail themselves of this payment, they must resort' to their plea in a regular suit.

¶2Let the order be reversed.

/1/johnscas/137 · .json · Public domain