Wintringham v. Wintringham
New York Supreme Court
OAKLEY, in behalf of a creditor, moved to set aside the judgment which had been entered up in this cause, on a bond and warrant of attorney, on the ground of fraud.
1Per curiam
The application here is in behalf of a creditor at large, not a judgment creditor. In Frazier v. Frazier, according to our recollection, the motion was in behalf of a judgment creditor. The case of Wiggins v. Armstrong, is analogous ; and the Chancellor, after examining all the cases, refused to grant the party relief, until he had completed his title at law, by judgment and execution. The power exercised by this Court, in staying executions and setting aside judgments, on the ground of fraud, is an equitable power; and if a Court of Chancery will not grant relief, except in favour of a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hendricks v. RobinsonNew York Court of Chancery · 1817
- Brinkerhoff v. BrownNew York Court of Chancery · 1820
- Spader v. DavisNew York Court of Chancery · 1821
3Cited by5 opinions
- Crim v. WalkerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Morrill v. WallaceSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1837
- Beekman v. KirkNew York Supreme Court · 1857
- Brooks v. StoneNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- Burtis v. DickinsonNew York Supreme Court · 1894