Clarkson v. De Peyster
New York Court of Chancery
This cause came before the court upon the demurrer of the defendant De Peyster to the complainants’ bill. In January, .1828, a decree was obtained in this court, in favor of the present complainants and D. F. Clarkson, against De Peyster, for about $11,000, besides costs.
Read the full summary
This cause came before the court upon the demurrer of the defendant De Peyster to the complainants’ bill. In January, .1828, a decree was obtained in this court, in favor of the present complainants and D. F. Clarkson, against De Peyster, for about $11,000, besides costs. This decree was afterwards affirmed oh appeal; and the costs in the original suit and in the court for the correction of errors were taxed at about $1300. In July, 1828, D. F. Clarkson and J. C. Clarkson assigned their interest in the decree to the complainant M. Clarkson, who was entitled to the residue of the money decreed…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The principal ground of demurrer stated by the"defendant, is, that the complainants’ bill is multifarious in joining a claim due to J. C. Clarkson on his judgment, with the claim of the other complainants, M. Clarkson and wife, for the costs due them on the decree. I think the •defendant’s counsel is under a misapprehension in supposing there is no part of the relief, sought by this bill, in which all the complainants have a common interest. So far as the bill seeks relief against the property and choses in action or equitable interests of the defendant De Peyster, which are…
2Cited by34 opinions
- Butts v. . WoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Edmeston v. LydeNew York Court of Chancery · 1829
- Robinson v. Springfield Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1885
- Geery v. . GeeryNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Wadsworth v. SchisselbauerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.