Cherry v. Monro
New York Court of Chancery
This case dame before the chancellor upon an appeal, by T. F. Monro and S. Beardsley, two of the defendants, from a decree of the vice chancellor of the seventh circuit; and upon a cross-appeal, by .the complainant, from an order, forming part of such decree, suppressing a portion of the complainant’s testimony.
Read the full summary
This case dame before the chancellor upon an appeal, by T. F. Monro and S. Beardsley, two of the defendants, from a decree of the vice chancellor of the seventh circuit; and upon a cross-appeal, by .the complainant, from an order, forming part of such decree, suppressing a portion of the complainant’s testimony. The facts of the case, as established by the pleadings and proofs, were as follows: Previous to the 10th of March, 1834, the complainant and J. Seymour, one of the defendants in this cause, against whom the bill was taken as confessed upon notice to him as an absentee, were copartners…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
If Seymour had been within the juris diction of the court, so that he could have been personally served with process, the defendant Beardsley probably would have had a right to insist that he should be made a party, for his benefit. For, in that case, Beardsley might have been entitled to a decree that Seymour should pay off the mortgage, so as to relieve the premises from the lien thereof. The complainant too, in that case, would have had an interest in malting Seymour a party. For he would have been entitled to a personal decree against him,- in the first instance, to pay off…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Crane v. DemingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1829
3Cited by16 opinions
- Ellsworth v. . LockwoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Josselyn v. EdwardsIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
- Johnson v. . ZinkNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Wright v. AndersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1934
- Gardner v. SamuelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.