Woolaston v. Mendenhall
Court of Chancery of Delaware
Motion eor an order oe sale.—A decree had been made by this Court, and affirmed on appeal; in favor of the complainants against, the defendant for the payment of $1310.57. An attachment for the non-performance of this decree was issued and returned non est inventus.
Read the full summary
Motion eor an order oe sale.—A decree had been made by this Court, and affirmed on appeal; in favor of the complainants against, the defendant for the payment of $1310.57. An attachment for the non-performance of this decree was issued and returned non est inventus. At the August Term, 1817, Read, Jr.,for the complainant, exhibited to the Court, the record of two executions against the defendant, issued out of the Supreme Court, in the hands of the sheriff, amounting to more than $2000.00; and the sheriff being examined in this Court, stated that the executions covered all the defendant’s…
1Opinion of the Court
Read,
of counsel for the defendant, doubted whether such was the intention of the law; but supposed it was *25intended for a class of cases where administrators, executors, and trustees might be ordered to sell, in order to effect the object of the trusts, &c.
The Chancellor observed, that such powers already resided in this Court, the Court possessing the same powers as the English Court of Chancery. The law must therefore have been intended to meet other cases, of which this seems to be one.
The order moved for was entered.
Note. It appears from Chancellor Ridgely’s note of this case, that upon…
2Cited by3 opinions
- King v. LankSuperior Court of Delaware · 1948
- Cutrona v. Mayor of WilmingtonCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1924
- Phillips v. Mayor of WilmingtonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1965