Wiser v. Blachly
New York Court of Chancery
THE bill in this cause was filed against Blachly, the guardian of the plaintifi, and against the executors of Vail, who was a surety for the guardian, for a breach of trust by the guardian, and for an account.
Read the full summary
THE bill in this cause was filed against Blachly, the guardian of the plaintifi, and against the executors of Vail, who was a surety for the guardian, for a breach of trust by the guardian, and for an account. The cause coming on to be heard, the counsel for the defendants objected to the want of proper parties; that as Vail, the testator, vthose, estate might be- made responsible, had, by his will, rendered the timber growing on his land assets for the payment of his debts, the devisee of his real estate ought, therefore, to be made a party. '
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor
suggested some difficulty in deducing, from the books, any precise rule on the question of necessary parties. The general rule,he observed, is, that you must have before the court all parties whose interests the decree may touch, because they are concerned to resist the demand, and to prevent their fund from being exhausted by collusion. In Gifford v. Hart, (1 Schoale & Lefroy, 386.,) it was held, that a decree obtained without making parties those whose rights were affected, was fraudulent and void as to those parties. The same doctrine was declared, in the house of lords, in…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Wood v. DummerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1824
- Glover v. PattenSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Colorado & Southern Railway Co. v. BlairNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- The HudsonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1883
- Crocker v. HigginsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1829
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.