Legal Opinion

Tooker v. Oakley

New York Court of Chancery

Decided May 2, 1843PublishedCited by 3 opinions

This case came before the court upon a motion by the defendant, to take the complainants’ bill off of the files of the court and to dissolve the injunction obtained thereonj and upon a cross motion, by the complainants, for the appointment of a receiver.

Read the full summary

This case came before the court upon a motion by the defendant, to take the complainants’ bill off of the files of the court and to dissolve the injunction obtained thereonj and upon a cross motion, by the complainants, for the appointment of a receiver. The defendant, and the complainants’ intestate were in copartnership at the death of-the latter, and the goods of. the firm were put up at auction, with the assent of the administrators and the surviving partner, and were mostly bid off by the latter. The bill in this cause was filed by W. A. Tooker, in the name of all the administrators, to…

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

All the executors or administrators of the testator or intestate must be made parties to a suit in chancery of this description. The practice at law is to bring the suit in the first place in the name of all, and if either of them is unwilling to have the suit prosecuted in his name afterwards, the one who has instituted the suit may then, upon a summons, have a judgment of severance and continue the suit in his own name only. (2 Walf. on Parties, 1530. Went. Off. of Ex. 212.) But in this court, if one of the executors or administrators, who is a necessary party, refuses to…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Post v. . HoverNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
  2. Jones v. Van Heusen Charles Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
  3. Strever v. FeltmanNew York Supreme Court · 1873

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API