Dyckman & McChain v. Kernochan
New York Court of Chancery
The bill was filed in this cause to set aside a decree obtained by the defendants in this court against divers persons who are not parties to the suit, and to restrain the present defendants from carrying that decree into effect, upon the ground that one of the former defendants died before the decree. The master having allowed an injunction for that purpose.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The present complainants do not shew such an interest in the mortgaged premises as will authorize them to interfere with the decree in the former suit. Dyckman became the purchaser, pendente lite, of all the interest of G. McChain in the mortgaged premises; but it does not appear that either he or S. S. Seymour, under , whom he claimed, ever had any interest in the premises decreed to be sold. Even if an interest existed in G. McChain or his grantee, which rendered the decree irregular as against that right after the death of the former, the assignee has not pursued the proper…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Robinson v. Springfield Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1885
- Platto v. DeusterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1868
- Smith v. McLainWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1877
- Wright v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
- McDonald v. MackenzieOregon Supreme Court · 1887
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.