Noah v. Webb
New York Court of Chancery
The motive for this bill was to have a bond given up, which it was alleged had become inoperative, On the twentieth day of May one thousand eight hundred and twenty nine, the complainant Mordecai M. Noah was the sole proprietor of a newspaper in the city of New York called “ The New York Enquirerand on the same day he sold the whole establishment to the defendants, James Watson Webb and Daniel E. Tylee, for the sum of thirty-five thousand dollars.
Read the full summary
The motive for this bill was to have a bond given up, which it was alleged had become inoperative, On the twentieth day of May one thousand eight hundred and twenty nine, the complainant Mordecai M. Noah was the sole proprietor of a newspaper in the city of New York called “ The New York Enquirerand on the same day he sold the whole establishment to the defendants, James Watson Webb and Daniel E. Tylee, for the sum of thirty-five thousand dollars. The object of the purchase was to unite The New York Enquirer with “ The Morning Courier” which belonged to Mr. Webb, and so as to have one paper…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor.
The power of this court to compel bonds and other instruments in the nature of securities to be given up and pancelled is hot to be disputed. And in the exercise of this power, so far as the point of jurisdiction is concerned,- it matters not whether such instrument could or could not be enforced' at law, nor whether it is void upon its face or shown to be void by evidence aliunde. Still, the power will not be exercised in evei-y case of the kind.- It rests in sound discretion. Before a bill for cancelling an instrumentan such cases will be sustained, the filing of it must…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Mandeville v. HarmanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1886
- Seymour Water Co. v. City of SeymourIndiana Supreme Court · 1904
- Farmington Village Corp. v. Sandy River National BankSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1892
- Brown v. BoydMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893