Bradt v. Kirkpatrick
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application to dismiss the complainant’s bill for want of jurisdiction. A cross motion was made at the same time for the appointment of a receiver of the effects of the defendants.
Read the full summary
This was an application to dismiss the complainant’s bill for want of jurisdiction. A cross motion was made at the same time for the appointment of a receiver of the effects of the defendants. The bill was in the usual form of creditors’ bills; and the complainant, after setting forth the recovery of a judgment against the defendants for $145,76, the return of an execution unsatisfied,. and that the whole amount remained due, &c. averred that the defendants had equitable interests, things in action, or other property of the value of $100 or more, exclusive of all prior just claims thereon.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The intention of the court in the adoption of the 189th rule, was to compel the complainant to insert an averment in his bill in such form as to show on the face of the bill itself that the amount in dispute, exclu-, sive of costs, exceeded $100. I perceive however, that by a mere inadvertence in substituting or for and, the language of the rule is not quite as broad as the statutory provision to which it was intended to conform. But as the averment in this bill is in conformity with the requirement of the rule, the defendant can neither demur nor move to dismiss the bill.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Koellhoffer v. PetersenNew York Supreme Court · 1913
- Church v. IdeNew York Court of Chancery · 1841