Ashworth v. Wrigley
New York Court of Chancery
On the first of October, 1828, bills were filed in these causes, calling upon the defendant for an account and satisfaction of the proceeds of the sales of certain goods assigned to him by the complainants respectively, as their agent or factor, to be sold. On the bill and the petition presented therewith, the injunction master allowed a ne exeat.
Read the full summary
On the first of October, 1828, bills were filed in these causes, calling upon the defendant for an account and satisfaction of the proceeds of the sales of certain goods assigned to him by the complainants respectively, as their agent or factor, to be sold. On the bill and the petition presented therewith, the injunction master allowed a ne exeat. On the fourth of October the defendant was discharged by the recorder of New York, under the non-imprisonment act; and on the same day, and after the discharge, the defendant was arrested on the ne exeat, and compelled to give bail thereon. Upon an…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor :—There is no allegation of fraud in these bills; they are simply for an account and payment of demands founded on contract. There is therefore nothing *to prevent the discharge, if valid, operating to exempt the body of the defendant from imprisonment for these demands. The mere fact that a certiorari has been allowed, without stating in what the proceedings before the recorder were erroneous, so that this court could judge whether there -is probable cause to reverse the same, is not sufficient. The discharge is at least prima facie evidence that the defendant is exempt from…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Gleason v. BisbyNew York Court of Chancery · 1841