Palmer's administrators v. Mead
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was a bill in chancery to foreclose mortgaged premises. On the hearing, at Fairfield, December term, 1826, before Peters, J., the plaintiffs exhibited the mortgage deed, and the note which it was given to secure, and proved the execution of them.
Read the full summary
This was a bill in chancery to foreclose mortgaged premises. On the hearing, at Fairfield, December term, 1826, before Peters, J., the plaintiffs exhibited the mortgage deed, and the note which it was given to secure, and proved the execution of them. Three of the defendants, Job, Isaac and Manoah Mead, having proved themselves to be attaching creditors of the land mortgaged, whose suits were pending, by way of defence against the bill, offered testimony to shew, that the deed was executed, by the grantor to the grantee, to defraud the creditors of the grantor, and these defendants among…
1DissentPeters, J.
I cannot concur with the Chief Justice, though he relies on my opinion in Broome v. Beers, 6 Conn. ep 198., wnieh is as conclusive as any other argumentum ad hominem. In forming that opinion upon the question of jurisdiction, 1 followed implicitly the decisions of my predecessors, who were probably misled bv Powell’s abridgment of an anonymous case in 2 Chan. Ca. 244., which, according to Chancellor Kent, is “ so briefly and so loosely reported, as to be scarcely deserving of any consideration.” Kershaw v Thompson, 4 Johns. ( han. Rep. 616. This point was of minor consideration in Broome v.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- De Butts v. BaconSupreme Court of the United States · 1810