Brinkerhoff v. Marvin
New York Court of Chancery
THE bill, filed 28th of March, 1821, stated, that in July 1819, J. and Z. Taylor, of Saratoga, being largely indebted to the plaintiffs, for goods sold to them, executed a bond to the plaintiffs, for the amount due, with a warrant of attorney to confess judgment thereon.
Read the full summary
THE bill, filed 28th of March, 1821, stated, that in July 1819, J. and Z. Taylor, of Saratoga, being largely indebted to the plaintiffs, for goods sold to them, executed a bond to the plaintiffs, for the amount due, with a warrant of attorney to confess judgment thereon. That judgment was entered up in the Supreme Court, on the bond, the 27th of November, 1819, That on the 3d of January, 1820, the defendants, W. J. and A. Marvin, entered up a judgment against J. Taylor, by confession, on filing special bail, without a writ or declaration, op a cognovit actionem, for 5,755 dollars and 60…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
1. The decision Of the Supreme Court, stated in the pleadings, in which they have declared and adjudged that the specification filed by the plaintiffs, oti entering their judgment by confession, was defective, and that, therefore, the judgments of the defendants were entitled to priority, I do not feel myself at liberty to question and overrule. Jt is settled, as an established rule, that Courts of law have an equitable jurisdiction over judgments by confession, entered upon warrants of attorney. It was so declared by the Supreme Court, in Frasier v. Frasier ; (9 Johns. Rep.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Shirras & Others v. Caig & MitchelSupreme Court of the United States · 1812
3Cited by26 opinions
- Ackerman v. . HunsickerNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- In re Locust Bldg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
- Brown v. ParkerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Tully v. HarloeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Third National Bank v. HaugMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.