23 A. 368 | N.H. | 1891
The insolvency proceedings afford no objection to the maintenance of the defendant's action against Hanson; nor, it seems, would they against such a suit in Massachusetts. Morse v. Reed, 13 Met. 62; Barker v. Haskell, 9 Cush. 218. In these cases the objection was made by the debtor. The plaintiff, as assignee, has no interest to prevent the defendants from prosecuting their suit to judgment. His interest, if any, lies in the opposite direction. If the defendants obtain judgment, they can prove neither it, nor their original demand against Hanson's estate. Sampson v. Clark, 2 Cush. 173; Woodbury v. Perkins, 5 Cush. 86; Bangs v. Watson, 9 Gray 211; Hollister v. Abbott,
An assignment under the insolvent law of another state is not permitted to prevail against a subsequent attachment by a citizen of this state of the insolvent's property found here. Saunders v. Williams,
Bill dismissed.
SMITH, J., did not sit; the others concurred. *560