Wilson v. Koontz
Supreme Court of the United States
THIS was an appeal.from the decree of the Circuit Court for tjie district of Columbia, which dismissed the Complainant’s bill in. equity. Wilson filed a bill in equity, in the nature of an attachment in chancery, against Koontz, surviving partne,> of Koontz and Ober, as principal debtor, and Thomas Irvine and Joseph Mandevilie as garnishees.
Read the full summary
THIS was an appeal.from the decree of the Circuit Court for tjie district of Columbia, which dismissed the Complainant’s bill in. equity. Wilson filed a bill in equity, in the nature of an attachment in chancery, against Koontz, surviving partne,> of Koontz and Ober, as principal debtor, and Thomas Irvine and Joseph Mandevilie as garnishees. It stated that Koontz, a resident of Virginia, as surviving partner of the firm of Koontz and Ober, was indebted to the Plaintiff by note, in the sum of 1,261 dollars, and had in the hands of Thomas Irvine and Joseph vil le goods and effects which were…
1Opinion of the Court
Marshall. Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court to the following effect:
This is'a suit in chancery, and the. Defendant pleads the act of limitations. The Plaintiff by his replication attempts to bring the case within the exception contained in the 14th section of that act5. but it seems essen-" tial, under that section, that the Complainant should have been actually defeated or obstructed ip bringing his action by the removal of the Defendant. ' There is no evidence of his intention of bringing bis action sooner than he did, or that he was delayed by the Defendant’s removal from the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Wilson v. KoontzSupreme Court of the United States · 1812