Legal Opinion

Heyneman v. Dannenberg

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1856PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District. The plaintiffs, attaching creditors of Lewis Morris, filed a bill against him with Joseph Dannenberg and W. Thornburg, the sheriff of Yuba County, praying for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding to sell on execution certain property of Morris, under a judgment for $10,080, and costs, obtained by Dannenberg against Morris, a few days before the filing of the bill.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District. The plaintiffs, attaching creditors of Lewis Morris, filed a bill against him with Joseph Dannenberg and W. Thornburg, the sheriff of Yuba County, praying for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding to sell on execution certain property of Morris, under a judgment for $10,080, and costs, obtained by Dannenberg against Morris, a few days before the filing of the bill. The bill alleges that the property about to be sold on execution under said judgment, has been attached by the plaintiffs subsequent to an…

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Murray.

Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

It is a general rule, that a Court of Equity will not take jurisdiction of a controversy, if the parties have an adequate remedy at law, and in accordance with this rule, Courts of Chancery have repeatedly refused to interfere at the instance of a creditor, and set aside fraudulent conveyances of the debtor’s property, until the creditor has first exhausted his remedy by judgment, execution, aud return of nulla bona.

For aught the Court might know, the claim might be illegal, or there might be…

2Cited by16 opinions

  1. Lewis v. HarwoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
  2. Cartwright v. Bamberger, Bloom & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1890
  3. Conroy v. WoodsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
  4. Richardson v. MichelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  5. Speyer v. Ihmels & Co.California Supreme Court · 1862

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API