Gleason v. Bisby
New York Court of Chancery
The bill in this case states that the complainant sold to the defendant three hundred mulberry trees, of the kind called Morus Multicaulis, for $300, for which the defendant executed two notes to the complainant, one for $25, payable one day after date; and one for $275, payable one year after date.
Read the full summary
The bill in this case states that the complainant sold to the defendant three hundred mulberry trees, of the kind called Morus Multicaulis, for $300, for which the defendant executed two notes to the complainant, one for $25, payable one day after date; and one for $275, payable one year after date. Soon after the notes were executed, the defendant called upon the complainant to pay the $25 note, who paid him twenty-five dollars; and the complainant, by mistake, handed the defendant the note for $275. The complainant did not discover the mistake until some time afterwards, and then called…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice Chancellor.
The writ of ne exeat is not, in this age and certainly not in this country, looked upon as a prerogative writ. It is a mere ordinary- process of the court, to'be used, under certain circumstances, to enable it to compel parties, as be*556tween themselves, to do justice in relation to matters brought before the court for adjudication.
It is employed to prevent a party who owes an act of justice to his fellow citizen, and to enforce which a suit has been instituted, from withdrawing himself from the jurisdiction of the court, so that he cannot be compelled by its process, to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Mitchell v. BunchNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- McNamara v. DwyerNew York Court of Chancery · 1838
- Brown v. Haff & LyonNew York Court of Chancery · 1835
- Ashworth v. WrigleyNew York Court of Chancery · 1828
3Cited by3 opinions
- Forrest v. ForrestNew York Supreme Court · 1850
- Bushnell v. BushnellNew York Supreme Court · 1853
- Ellingwood v. StevensonNew York Court of Chancery · 1846