Porter v. Spencer
New York Court of Chancery
THE bill, which was for an account and a ne exeat, stated that the plaintiffs were merchant tailors, and had sold clothing to the defendant on a credit of six months; that on the 1st of January last, there was a balance of account due to them from the defendant, with interest, of .317 dollars and 85 cents.
Read the full summary
THE bill, which was for an account and a ne exeat, stated that the plaintiffs were merchant tailors, and had sold clothing to the defendant on a credit of six months; that on the 1st of January last, there was a balance of account due to them from the defendant, with interest, of .317 dollars and 85 cents. To recover this sum, the plaintiffs had brought an action at law against the defendant, and held him to bail; and the defendant had pleaded the general issue, merely for delay. That the defendant’s father was a special bail, and had, as the plaintiffs were informed, and verily believed,…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor. [ * 170 ]
The general language of the cases prior to the time of Lord Eldon is, that the writ of ne exeat is not to be granted, if the demand be not purely and exclusively equitable. (King v. Smith, Dickens, 82. *Brocker v. Hamilton, Dickens, 154. Pearne v. Lisle, Amb. 75. Anon. 9, Atk. 210. Crosley v. Marriot, Dickens, 609.) If the demand be actionable at law, and the party can be arrested and held to bail, there is no necessity for the writ; and if the case be not bailable, the granting of the writ would be holding the party to bail, when the plaintiff was not entitled to…
2Cited by12 opinions
- McMartin v. BinghamSupreme Court of Iowa · 1869
- Yates v. Stuart's Adm'rWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1894
- Bonesteel v. BonesteelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Palmer v. PalmerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1915
- Kennicott v. LeavittAppellate Court of Illinois · 1890
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.