Hamilton v. Cummings
New York Court of Chancery
THE bill stated, that the defendant, pretending to he lawfully possessed of a bond, made by James Hamilton, the father of the plaintiff, dated the 27th of September, 1794, conditioned for the payment of sixty pounds, had brought an action, at law, thereon against the plaintiff, as administrator of his father’s estate, and the cause was at issue.
Read the full summary
THE bill stated, that the defendant, pretending to he lawfully possessed of a bond, made by James Hamilton, the father of the plaintiff, dated the 27th of September, 1794, conditioned for the payment of sixty pounds, had brought an action, at law, thereon against the plaintiff, as administrator of his father’s estate, and the cause was at issue. That the defendant pretended to have another bond, executed by the plaintiff’s father, for 800 pounds, which he refused to show". The plaintiff charged that both the bonds, if executed, were voluntary, and without consideration, or were given to…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor,
tjpon the answer and proofs in this cause, the relief sought and claimed is, that the two bonds acknowledged to be held by the defendant, should be decreed to be delivered up and cancelled. The question, whether such a remedy can, or ought to be applied, leads to an interesting inquiry..1. The defendant admits that he holds a bond, executed by the ancestor of the plaintiff, on the 22d of ■ September, 1788, for the payment of 996/. on the first of January following ; and that it was given upon a special trust, of a secret and delicate nature, which, he does not think proper to…
2Cited by51 opinions
- Beer v. LandmanTexas Supreme Court · 1895
- Reed v. TylerIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
- Lyon v. HuntSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847
- Louisville Trust Co. v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
- Fuller v. PercivalMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.