Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

13 Wend. 377

Huffman v. Hulbert

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1835

New York Supreme Court · decided 1835-01-15

This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the Cayuga circuit in April, 1833, before the Hon. Daniel Moseley, one of the circuit judges. The suit was brought on a joint and several note for $200 given to the plaintiff, bearing date 26th January, 1829, payable on demand, signed by John W. Hulbert as principal, and by John P. Hulbert the defendant, and Lewis Warren, as sureties.

Cited in Abbott (1879)’s definition of “Solvency”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1835-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 1940

8 state decisions

30183518401850186018701880189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

¶1By the Court,

Nelson, J.

¶2I perceive no objection to the charge of the circuit judge. Solvency, in the sense in which it is used, as applicable to the principle of law referred to by the judge, means something more than an ability to pay at the option of the debtor; it means that the debtor is in such a condition that the demand may be collected out of his property by due course of law. Any thing short of this would destroy the justice, and consequently the soundness of the rule which is founded upon the assumption that the debt is clearly collectable by suit. It is upon this ground only it can be defended. As the surety has the right to take up the note, and prosecute for hi- own benefit, he should be required to bring himself strictly and fully within the principle.. If insolvency means the inability of a man, from resources belonging to him and within his control, to pay his debts, and which is its !iteral interpretation, then the evidence was abundant, to show that t 'e •/ rincipal was insolvent at the time, the request :o sue was made. Ability to raise money upon credit for the pay*379mant of debts, and salvency within the meaning of this rule, are very different things.

¶3The question of extension of- time of payment, by a valid and binding agreement, was fairly submitted to the jury, and their verdict is conclusive, upon the facts of the case.

¶4New trial denied.

/13/wend/377 · .json · Public domain