Webb v. Pell
New York Court of Chancery
The object of the bill filed in this cause was to review the decision and decree of Chancellor Kent, made in a suit in which Harvey Elliott, deceased, was plaintiff, and Aaron Pell and wife, Minot Mitchell, Betsey Hinman, now the wife of Elisha Webb, and others were defendants; and which decree was afterwards affirmed upon a re-hearing before Chancellor Sanford.
Read the full summary
The object of the bill filed in this cause was to review the decision and decree of Chancellor Kent, made in a suit in which Harvey Elliott, deceased, was plaintiff, and Aaron Pell and wife, Minot Mitchell, Betsey Hinman, now the wife of Elisha Webb, and others were defendants; and which decree was afterwards affirmed upon a re-hearing before Chancellor Sanford. The principal facts in the case will be found stated in Elliott v. Pell and others, (1 Paige’s Rep. 263.) in addition to the facts there detailed, it appeared from the bill of review, in this cause, filed in February, 1828, that the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The grounds of objection to the original decree, and to the decree of Chancellor Sanford affirming the same, as stated in the bill of review, are, 1. That no replication having been filed to the answers of the now complainants, who were defendants in the original suit, those answers ought to have been taken as true; so far at least as to prevent their co-defendants, Pell and wife, from obtaining a decree establishing their pretended mortgage. 2. That the instrument set out in the pleadings was established as a lien on the whole 'of the premises; whereas, by its terms, it only…
2Cited by17 opinions
- McDougald's Adm'r v. DoughertySupreme Court of Alabama · 1864
- Hall v. LowtherWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1883
- Ashford v. PattonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
- Enochs v. HarrelsonMississippi Supreme Court · 1879
- Heermans v. MontagueSupreme Court of Virginia · 1890
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.