Bainbridge v. Allen
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On bill, answer, cross-bill and answer, &c. The bill of complaint in this cause is filed by Willis P. Bainbridge, who at the time the bill was filed was plaintiff in attachment issued out of the supreme court of this state against one Henry Allen, a non-resident debtor.
Read the full summary
On bill, answer, cross-bill and answer, &c. The bill of complaint in this cause is filed by Willis P. Bainbridge, who at the time the bill was filed was plaintiff in attachment issued out of the supreme court of this state against one Henry Allen, a non-resident debtor. Tinder the attachment writs was seized the undivided one-eleventh interest of Henry Allen in twenty-nine and sixij'-hundrecltlis acres of land in Camden count]', also in five.and fifteen-hundredths acres in Cumberland county, excepting certain parts theretofore sold; also in the residue of moneys in the hands of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Obey, V. C.
The first question to be determined is whether the complainant, being a plaintiff in an attachment which has been levied, can lawfully file this bill in aid of the lien of his attachment.
This question is settled in favor of the complainant by the decision of the court of errors and appeals in the case of Haston v. Castner, 31 N. J. Eq. (4 Stew.) 697, where that court declared that the lien obtained by the levying of an attachment affords to the plaintiff in attachment the- footing requisite to enable him to maintain a bill in equity to set aside a fraudulent deed which impedes the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Axt v. 61 Lincoln ParkNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1931
- National Security Bank v. BlumbergNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1924