Hone v. Woolsey
New York Court of Chancery
On the third day of July one thousand eight hundred and thirty txyo, the defendants William C. Woolsey, Benjamin Poor and Erastus D. Converse made an assignment for the benefit of creditors and wherein the other defendants, Cortlandt Palmer, Jonathan Trotter and Richard Bartlett, were the trustees.
Read the full summary
On the third day of July one thousand eight hundred and thirty txyo, the defendants William C. Woolsey, Benjamin Poor and Erastus D. Converse made an assignment for the benefit of creditors and wherein the other defendants, Cortlandt Palmer, Jonathan Trotter and Richard Bartlett, were the trustees. Sometime in the month of November one thousand eight hundred and thirty two the parties who had made the assignment were advised that the validity of a similar assignment had been lately impeached in this court (Wakeman v. Grover, 4. Paige’s C. R. 23, and in Error 11. Wend. 187); and, therefore,…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor:
It is not necessary I should examine the objections raised against the validity of the complainants’ judgment. They more properly belong to the court of law, where any irregularity in the manner of obtaining the judgment or any fraudulent and collusive means resorted to for the purpose can be examined; and if found to exist, the judgment will be set aside. The court rendering the judgment is best able to determine what is irregular and how far its process has been abused ; and if a defendant wishes to avoid the effect of a judgment improperly rendered against him, the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- First National Bank v. HughesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1881
- Mills v. ArgallNew York Court of Chancery · 1837
- Metcalf & Cushing v. Van BruntNew York Supreme Court · 1862
- Powers v. GraydonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1863
- Hopson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.