Coe v. Whitbeck
New York Court of Chancery
■ This was an appeal from an order of the vice chancellor of the éighth circuit, for the appointment of a receiver upon a' creditor’s bill; and from-another order denying the defendant’s application to dissolve the injunction which had been allowed upon the filing of the bill.
Read the full summary
■ This was an appeal from an order of the vice chancellor of the éighth circuit, for the appointment of a receiver upon a' creditor’s bill; and from-another order denying the defendant’s application to dissolve the injunction which had been allowed upon the filing of the bill. The complainants stated, in their bill, the recovery of a judgment in the supreme court, in October, 1842, for $83,12, in favor of themselves and J. Wells, as copartners,' for a debt due tó , their copartnership firm of Coe, Wells & Co., that upon such judgment an execution was issued to the sheriff of the county of…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
This case must be decided upon the facts stated in the original bill, on which the orders appealed from were based. I cannot therefore notice the fact, subsequently stated by way of amendment to the bill, that the bankrupt had assigned his interest in the judgment, recovered in the names of himself and of the complainants, previous to the institution of the proceedings for his discharge under the bankrupt act. For the purpose of ascertaining whether the decisions of the vice chancellor were correct, therefore, it must be .taken as an admitted fact that the judgment belonged to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Crippen v. . HudsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1855
- Peterson v. GittingsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
- Hooley v. GieveNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1878
- Lyman v. LymanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont · 1829