Hastings v. Cropper
Court of Chancery of Delaware
Bill for an injunction to stay proceedings at LAW. — The principal.facts of this case were alleged by the bill and admitted by the answers. It appeared that on the 12th of October, 1849, judgment was recovered by the defendant, Cropper, and Samuel B. Hitch, deceased, late trading as Cropper and Hitch, against the complainant and James C. Dunning, late trading as Hastings and Dunning, for $544.94 and costs, with interest from the same date.
Read the full summary
Bill for an injunction to stay proceedings at LAW. — The principal.facts of this case were alleged by the bill and admitted by the answers. It appeared that on the 12th of October, 1849, judgment was recovered by the defendant, Cropper, and Samuel B. Hitch, deceased, late trading as Cropper and Hitch, against the complainant and James C. Dunning, late trading as Hastings and Dunning, for $544.94 and costs, with interest from the same date. On the 20th ofjuly, 1863, Hitch died, leaving the judgment wholly unpaid. The bill alleged that Cropper, as surviving partner, was entitled to collect the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor :—
This bill is filed to. restrain the execution of a judgment in the Superior Court at suit of Cropper and Hitch against Hastings and Dunning, recovered October 12th, 1849, f°r $544-94 and costs.
One of the complainant’s grounds for relief is that, notwithstanding Samuel B. Hitch, one of the plaintiffs in the judgment, had -died, and the judgment survived to Cropper, the execution was issued in’; the name of both the original plaintiffs, as though Hitch were still living ; whereas Hitch’s death should have been suggested on the record, and execution taken in the name of the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Graham v. National BankSuperior Court of Delaware · 1922
- Sammons v. KeeblerCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1959