Legal Opinion

Cropper v. Coburn

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided October 15, 1855PublishedCited by 9 opinions

This was a suit in equity by two partners, to enjoin the creditor of one of them, and also the sheriff, from laying or continuing an attachment on property of the firm. The bill was demurred to.

Read the full summary

This was a suit in equity by two partners, to enjoin the creditor of one of them, and also the sheriff, from laying or continuing an attachment on property of the firm. The bill was demurred to. So much of the bill as was material to the points raised is as follows: “John Cropper, of Nottingham, in the kingdom of Great Britain, and a citizen and subject of said kingdom, and an alien, and Francis Hemsley, of New York, in the state and district of New York, and a citizen of said state of New York, bring this their bill against Daniel J. Cobum, of Boston, and Joseph Butterfield, of Lowell, both…

1Opinion of the Court

CURTIS, Circuit Justice.

The first question is, whether this court is restrained from granting the injunction prayed for, by that clause of the fifth section of the act of March 2, 1793 (1 - Stat. 334), which provides, “nor shall a writ of injunction be granted to stay proceedings in any court of a state.” The gist of the complainants' bill is, that under process against Hemsley, the creditor and the sheriff have taken property in which he has no equitable interest whatever; and that the aid of a court of equity is needful to ascertain that he has no interest therein, and to protect the real…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Pierce v. JacksonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
  2. Moody v. PayneNew York Court of Chancery · 1817
  3. Thompson v. LewisSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1852

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. American Ass'n v. HurstCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1893
  2. Perry v. SharpeUnited States Circuit Court · 1881
  3. Pokegama Sugar Pine Lumber Co. v. Klamath River Lumber & Improvement Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1899
  4. Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Keokuk & H. Bridge Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1895
  5. Virginia, T. & C. Steel & Iron Co. v. HarrisCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1907

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API