McArthur v. Hoysradt
New York Court of Chancery
This case carné before the chancellor upon an appeal, by the complainants, from a decree of the late vice chancellor of the third circuit, dismissing their bill with costs. The complainants were the administrators of Adam McArthur, who was. a surety for the defendant, J. A. Hoysradt, upon a note given to Silas Miller.
Read the full summary
This case carné before the chancellor upon an appeal, by the complainants, from a decree of the late vice chancellor of the third circuit, dismissing their bill with costs. The complainants were the administrators of Adam McArthur, who was. a surety for the defendant, J. A. Hoysradt, upon a note given to Silas Miller. In May term, 1835, after the death of McArthur,, Miller recovered a judgment in the supreme court, against J. A. Hoysradt, as the surviving maker of the note, for about $966-And an execution was issued upon that judgment, and was returned unsatisfied in July term, of the same…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The vice chancellor was clearly wrong, in supposing that this bill was not properly framed, as a creditor’s bill, to reach any interest,which the defendant J. A. Hoysradt had in the personal estate of his deceased father, or in any other property or things in action, or equitable interests belonging to him. It was not necessary, for this purpose, that the personal representatives of the father should be parties to this suit. For the interest of the judgment debtor in his father’s estate, if it was improperly included in the deductions made from the purchase money of his…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Adams v. HackettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Murphy v. BusickIndiana Court of Appeals · 1899
- Cresswell v. SmithTennessee Supreme Court · 1881
- Ginn v. BrownSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1884
- Creswell v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1875
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.