Haggerty v. Duane
New York Court of Chancery
The defendant Furniss purchased a quantity of goods at auction of the complainants on the 5th of September, 1828, to be paid for in indorsed notes. The goods were sent home according to the custom on such sales at New York. A few days after the sale, one of the complainants called for the notes, but they were not ready.
Read the full summary
The defendant Furniss purchased a quantity of goods at auction of the complainants on the 5th of September, 1828, to be paid for in indorsed notes. The goods were sent home according to the custom on such sales at New York. A few days after the sale, one of the complainants called for the notes, but they were not ready. On Saturday, the 20th of September, he again called and demanded that either the notes should be given or the goods returned, and intimated that if one. or the other was not done, he should file a bill in this court to compel it. Eurniss did not comply with *this request, and…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor :—It is not necessary to go into the merits of the case on this application. The principal on which the complainants claim an equitable lien on the property sold has been frequently recognized by this court, and was recently asserted in the case of Keeler & Freeman v. Field & others, (ante, 312.) It was also recognized and applied by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in Whitwell v. Vincent, 4 Pickering’s Rep. 449.) For the purpose of this motion it is sufficient that the bill and answer show a' case on the part of the defendants which is at least liable to strong ^suspicion.…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Fleeman v. McKeanNew York Supreme Court · 1857
- Jessop v. MillerNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Dusenberry v. WoodwardThe Superior Court of New York City · 1855
- Jessop v. MillerNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Wilmot v. RichardsonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1861