Spencer v. Spencer
New York Court of Chancery
This case came before the chancellor upori an appeal from a decree of the late assistant vice chancellor, made upon the hearing of exceptions to a master’s report arid for further directions. The defendants W. Spencer and R. S. Corning were trustees of the property of J. Spencer, the 'complainant, the brother of one and brother in law of the other of the .defendants. The defendant Corning put in his answer to the bill; to which answer a replication was filed.
Read the full summary
This case came before the chancellor upori an appeal from a decree of the late assistant vice chancellor, made upon the hearing of exceptions to a master’s report arid for further directions. The defendants W. Spencer and R. S. Corning were trustees of the property of J. Spencer, the 'complainant, the brother of one and brother in law of the other of the .defendants. The defendant Corning put in his answer to the bill; to which answer a replication was filed. And the defendant W. Spencer suifered the bill to be taken as confessed. In January, 1839, upon the written stipulations of all the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The first question which I shall consider-, and which is the most important one in the case, is as to the defendant Coming’s third exception j or rather to that part of the decision which holds Corning accountable for' the balance upon Horton’s bond and mortgage. The evidence in the case leads my mind irresistibly to the conclusion that the defendant Corning never paid any consideration for the deed of the 20th of April, 1833, and for the assignment of the mortgage of Horton, except the several sums included in exhibit B. B. The sole object of the deed appears to have been to…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Jerome v. BigelowIllinois Supreme Court · 1872