Mumford v. Murray
New York Court of Chancery
BILL of revivor and supplement, (filed March 3, 1831,) by the administrators of John U Mnwfords deceased-, ' ’ against the defendant.
Read the full summary
BILL of revivor and supplement, (filed March 3, 1831,) by the administrators of John U Mnwfords deceased-, ' ’ against the defendant. The material parts of the original pleadings were as follows : The original bill, filed by the intestate, in September, 1818, stated, that he, and the defendant, were formerly partners in trade, under the firm of Murray Sp Mumford, in the city of New-York; that Robert Murray if Co., being largely indebted to M. if M. and others, on the 23d of March, 1798, executed an assignment of certain property, therein specified, to the defendant, and John Innes Clark, in…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancelloe.
The defendant is called upon to account to the plaintiffs, as the representatives of his deceased partner, for moneys received by him in trust for the partnership.
If a preliminary objection, as to the want of parties, can *11lie properly overruled, then the question upon the merits is, not whether there shall he a decree to account, hut as to the directions to be given to the master.
The defendant objected, in the first answer, and, also, at the hearing, to a want of parties; and he contends, that the cestui que trusts, mentioned in the deed of the 31st of ■May, 1800, ought to have…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Davis v. Swedish-American National BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- St. Paul Trust Co. v. KittsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Speidell v. HenriciDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1883
- Lyman v. LymanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont · 1829
- Weetjen v. VibbardNew York Supreme Court · 1875