Whipple v. Lansing & Van Rensselaer
New York Court of Chancery
THE bill stated that the father of the plaintiff’s wife, died intestate, the 28th of September, 1805, leaving her his sole heir, and widow', since deceased. That the plaintiff and his wife were married in June, 1817. That the intestate left a considerable personal estate, more than sufficient to pay all his debts, and died seised of a large real estate.
Read the full summary
THE bill stated that the father of the plaintiff’s wife, died intestate, the 28th of September, 1805, leaving her his sole heir, and widow', since deceased. That the plaintiff and his wife were married in June, 1817. That the intestate left a considerable personal estate, more than sufficient to pay all his debts, and died seised of a large real estate. That on the 28th of October, 1805, the defendant, Abraham, A. Lansing, administered on the estate, and on the 28th "of June, 1806, upon false representations of the sums due, and which had been paid and received, and of the amount of the debts…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The defendant, Van Rensselaer, is charged in the bill as a particeps criminis to the transactions, or some of them, sought to be impeached. He is called to swear to the truth and to the justness of the charges made on his part, and to the payments made on the part of the other defendant, and which are charged as being the result entirely of a fraudulent collusion. If the charge be true, the defendant, Van Rensselaer, must not only answer in costs, but he loses the advantage of the settlement *614he has made with the other defendant, and he will be ultimately responsible for the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Ormsby's Adm'rs v. BakewellOhio Supreme Court · 1835
- Warner v. DanielsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1845
- Neville v. DemerittNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1840
- Pope v. AndrewsMississippi Chancery Courts · 1843
- Mizell v. HerbertMississippi Supreme Court · 1849
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.