Bank of Auburn v. Throop
New York Supreme Court
THE defendant, T., was the maker of a promissory note endorsed by W. & A., plaintiffs in the second suit, which was discounted at the Bank of Auburn, for the benefit of T. The note being protested for non-payment, the Bunk of Auburn commenced a suit against T., and recovered a judgment against him on the 27th of October, and a fi. fa. was issued on the same day.
Read the full summary
THE defendant, T., was the maker of a promissory note endorsed by W. & A., plaintiffs in the second suit, which was discounted at the Bank of Auburn, for the benefit of T. The note being protested for non-payment, the Bunk of Auburn commenced a suit against T., and recovered a judgment against him on the 27th of October, and a fi. fa. was issued on the same day. T., for the security and indemni-tv of the endorsers, previously confessed a judgment m J 31 J jo their favour, which was entered up on the 14th of August, and a fi.fa. issued thereon, on the 10th of October; both executions were…
1Per curiam
We have no doubt of our power to control the process of the Court, in such a case as this, for the purposes of justice and equity, and to prevent the necessity of resorting to a Court of Chancery. This Court will take *506notice ot the equitable rights ot parties' c,e8irty ascertained 5 and this Is a dear < ^ ant* complete justice may be done to a Court of equity. ■JQT^tea: ras in a We shall, therefore, grant the motion.
Rule granted.
2Cited by19 opinions
- Pratt v. AdamsNew York Court of Chancery · 1839
- Halsey v. ReedNew York Court of Chancery · 1842
- Curtis v. TylerNew York Court of Chancery · 1842
- Vail v. . FosterNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
- In the Matter of Comrs. Wash. ParkNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.