Clark v. Davis
Michigan Court of Chancery
Motion to dissolve an injunction. The bill filed in this case, is framed with a double aspect. It sets up the return of an execution unsatisfied, and the issuing of another execution. It seeks to reach the equitable interests of the defendant, and also to aid the second execution. The jurat is special, and as follows:- “ State of Michigan, County of Wayne, ss.
Read the full summary
Motion to dissolve an injunction. The bill filed in this case, is framed with a double aspect. It sets up the return of an execution unsatisfied, and the issuing of another execution. It seeks to reach the equitable interests of the defendant, and also to aid the second execution. The jurat is special, and as follows:- “ State of Michigan, County of Wayne, ss. “Ezra G. Seaman, solicitor for the complainants, being duly sworn, says, that he drew the draft of the foregoing bill of complaint, and knows the contents thereof; that the complainants are not citizens of the state of Michigan, but of…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The jurat is insufficient. It is special, and none of the averments required by the 109th rule, are sworn to at all. These averments are material; without them the injunction cannot be sustained. (See McElwain vs. Willis, 3 Paige R., 505.) The injunction must be dissolved.
Injunction dissolved.
The complainant having obtained leave to file a new affidavit, the following affidavit was filed as an amendment.
Wayne County, ss.
Ezra C. Seaman being duly sworn, deposes and says; that the complainants in this cause, are not citizens or residents of the state of Michigan: that they were…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- McElwain v. WillisCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1832
- Boyd & Suydam v. Hoyt & ParselNew York Court of Chancery · 1835
- Bleeker v. BinghamNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Cassidy v. MeachamNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Hurd v. EverettNew York Court of Chancery · 1828
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.