Gury v. Tannenwald
Ohio Supreme Court
This is a bill in chancery, reserved in Hamilton county. Gury filed a bill in the court of common pleas of Hamilton county against the defendants, under the act to amend the act directing the mode of proceeding in chancery, representing Tannenwald as his debtor, and Cohen as having in his possession goods belonging to Tannenwald, or as being indebted to him.
Read the full summary
This is a bill in chancery, reserved in Hamilton county. Gury filed a bill in the court of common pleas of Hamilton county against the defendants, under the act to amend the act directing the mode of proceeding in chancery, representing Tannenwald as his debtor, and Cohen as having in his possession goods belonging to Tannenwald, or as being indebted to him. The bill, after averring the indebtedness of Tannenwald and the pendency of a suit against him, alleged that Tannenwald was insolvent and wholly unable to pay his debts, and was about to convey, sell and transfer the only property he had,…
1Opinion of the Court
Hitchcock, C. <T.
These cases are presented to the court, under such circumstances that it is difficult to settle them in accordance with any well established rules of chancery practice. The bills were filed, or intended to be filed, in pursuance of the provisions of the “ act to amend an act directing the mode of proceeding in chancery,” passed February 25th, 1848, (46 Ohio L. 96.) In three of the cases it is shown, that on the 15th May, 1848, suits in assumpsit were commenced *483against Tannenwald, and the bills were filed on the 16th of the same month, and injunctions granted. On the evening…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. HammondIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Opinion No. 73-142 (1973) Ag, Oklahoma Attorney General Reports1973
- People ex rel. Lesniak v. MikulskiNew York City Magistrates' Court · 1914