Legal Opinion

Chapman v. Hammersley

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

Decided December 15, 1829PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Motion to dismiss appeal. In September, 1826, Chapman filed a bill in chancery against the respondents, stating, that Hammersley and himself as trustees for Jessy Ann Dyett, and her husband Joshua Dyett, purchased and became seised in May, 1823, of a certain manufacturing establishment, called the Dutchess Cotton Factory, subject to a certain agreement between the appellant and the respondents.

Read the full summary

Motion to dismiss appeal. In September, 1826, Chapman filed a bill in chancery against the respondents, stating, that Hammersley and himself as trustees for Jessy Ann Dyett, and her husband Joshua Dyett, purchased and became seised in May, 1823, of a certain manufacturing establishment, called the Dutchess Cotton Factory, subject to a certain agreement between the appellant and the respondents. In 1825, Chapman having made advances and incurred responsibilities in carrying on the business óf the factory, sold his interest to Dyett, the husband, who paid him $10,000 on account of the same, and…

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Marcy

The order made by the chancellor cannot affect the merits of the cause, and therefore is not the subject of appeal. It is aside of the merits, and relates only to the preservation of the property. The rights of the respective parties are not passed upon. Besides the sale will be public and open to the competition of the parties as well as strangers. The presumption is, the property will bring its fair value: the appellant, therefore, cannot be injured. In his bill, he himself asks for a sale of the property after the accounts are taken; why should he object to a sale now, inasmuch as the…

2Cited by10 opinions

  1. Tolman v. JonesIllinois Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Chicago Steel Works v. Illinois Steel Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Hottenstein v. ConradSupreme Court of Kansas · 1869
  4. Conro v. GrayNew York Supreme Court · 1849
  5. McKelsey v. LewisThe Superior Court of New York City · 1877

5 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