B. & J. Q. Aymer v. Gault & M'Namara
New York Court of Chancery
This was a bill of interpleader filed against the defendants to compel them to litigate and settle their claims to $1000 left in the hands of the complainants, for which the following receipt was given: “Received from Peter M’Namara of the city of St. Johns, New-Brunswick, one thousand dollars, to .satisfy any legal claims that Mr. Archibald Gault of the said city may have against the said Peter M’Namara-. And if any difficulty should arise between the said parties, they are…
Read the full summary
This was a bill of interpleader filed against the defendants to compel them to litigate and settle their claims to $1000 left in the hands of the complainants, for which the following receipt was given: “Received from Peter M’Namara of the city of St. Johns, New-Brunswick, one thousand dollars, to .satisfy any legal claims that Mr. Archibald Gault of the said city may have against the said Peter M’Namara-. And if any difficulty should arise between the said parties, they are to leave their claims to the decision of Messrs. Crookshanks and Walker of said city,, or any other two per-. sons said…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The bill in this case is properly filed, and the complainants are entitled to their costs out of the fund. They were strictly stake holders, and could not with safety have paid this money to either of the defendants. They have acted with perfect good faith, and are entitled to the protection of this court. If the bill had been taken as confessed against Gault on a personal service of the subpoena, or before the revised statutes went into operation, it would have been a matter of course to decree the fund to the other defendant, with costs over against Gault. Such will still be…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Engle v. ShurtsMichigan Supreme Court · 1848
- Catholic Benevolent Legion v. MonohanBaltimore City Circuit Court · 1897
- Main v. DavisNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- United States v. WoolseyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1845