Mattocks v. Tremain
New York Court of Chancery
THE petition of the defendant, Tremain, stated, that he was payee of a note of the plaintiff’s to him, for 2,212 dollars, and endorsed it to the other two defendants, who thereupon arrested the plaintiff, at law, but did not hold him to bail, owing to the representations of the petitioner ofhis solvency, &c.
Read the full summary
THE petition of the defendant, Tremain, stated, that he was payee of a note of the plaintiff’s to him, for 2,212 dollars, and endorsed it to the other two defendants, who thereupon arrested the plaintiff, at law, but did not hold him to bail, owing to the representations of the petitioner ofhis solvency, &c. That the plaintiff filed his bill against all the defendants, for an injunction to stay the suit at law, on the ground that he had never given such note, and the injunction was granted. That the petitioner is informed and believes, that the plaintiff is selling off his property,..and is…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
There are difficulties arising upon this petition.
1. In the first place, the demand of the petitioner is no *76sufficiently ascertained. The old rule was, that stating the belief of the balance of an account was sufficient, but Lord Eldon, in Amsinck v. Barklay, (8 Vesey, 597.) said he should, in future, pause upon such a general statement, unless facts or declarations, as the ground of that belief, were given. I do not say that such a dictum is sufficient to form a new rule, but the nature of this case requires something more' than a general declaration, that the plaintiff owes…
2Cited by2 opinions
- In re LipkeDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1900
- Rice v. HaleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1849