Field v. Maghee
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application by the defendant to compel S. and J. Kellogg and W. Osborn to refund a sum of money which bad been collected under the original decree in this cause, before it was reversed; and also to compel (hem to pay the costs which had been awarded to the defendant, against the complainant, on an appeal by the latter to the court for the correction of errors.
Read the full summary
This was an application by the defendant to compel S. and J. Kellogg and W. Osborn to refund a sum of money which bad been collected under the original decree in this cause, before it was reversed; and also to compel (hem to pay the costs which had been awarded to the defendant, against the complainant, on an appeal by the latter to the court for the correction of errors. The complainant was a judgment creditor of Emma Boyer; and the bill in this cause was filed to obtain satisfaction of the judgment out of her real estate, which the complainant alleged had been fraudulently conveyed to the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The defendant’s application is founded upon the supposition (hat there had been an assignment of the complainant’s judgment, to the Kelloggs and Osborn, and that the suit in this court was brought in the name of Field, as a nominal complainant merely, for their benefit. If such had been the fact, it would of itself have been a perfect defence to the suit, as the complainants in this court must be the real parties in interest, where a chose in action has been absolutely assigned. That defence was set up in the answer of the defendant, but no proof was introduced to substantiate…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Peticolas v. CarpenterTexas Supreme Court · 1880
- Walker v. BrooksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Maghee v. KelloggNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Penn v. HearonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1897
- Chisholm v. McDonaldAppellate Court of Illinois · 1889
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.