Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Spear & Ripley v. Wardell

New York Court of Appeals

Decided January 5, 1848Published

Appeal from the Court of Chancery. This case was brought to hearing, before the Chancellor, upon the bill filed by the appellants, and the joint and several answers of the respondents. The material facts were these: The appellants, on the 2d November, 1846, recovered judgment in the Supreme Court against Charles Wardell and Charles E. Wardell, two of the defendants, for $1,376,97 upon contract.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Court of Chancery. This case was brought to hearing, before the Chancellor, upon the bill filed by the appellants, and the joint and several answers of the respondents. The material facts were these: The appellants, on the 2d November, 1846, recovered judgment in the Supreme Court against Charles Wardell and Charles E. Wardell, two of the defendants, for $1,376,97 upon contract. The said Charles Wardell and Charles E. Wardell were partners in trade, and the judgment was for a partnership demand. On the 5th of November they were possessed of notes and accounts to an amount more…

1Concurrence

The first question is, whether the assignment which a debtor executes under the non-imprisonment law, (Stat. 1831, p. 400, § 16-17) is for the benefit of all his creditors; or whether the assigned property goes exclusively to the creditor who instituted the proceedings. The Chancellor had considered this as an open question; but as I understand the authorities, it had been settled, so far as the Supreme Court could settle it, that the property goes to the particular creditor who compelled the assignment, to the exclusion of all others, until his debt is paid. The proceeding is nothing more…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Wood v. BolardNew York Court of Chancery · 1841

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API