Horsey v. Stockley
Court of Chancery of Delaware
Bill in Equity.—This case arises under the following circumstances. William B. Horsey and John E. Martin, lately trading under the name and style of John E. Martin, at Seaford, in this State, became indebted to sundry creditors in the City of Baltimore whom they were unable to pay. In September, 1866, Horsey visited Baltimore with a view to effect a settlement of the debts.
Read the full summary
Bill in Equity.—This case arises under the following circumstances. William B. Horsey and John E. Martin, lately trading under the name and style of John E. Martin, at Seaford, in this State, became indebted to sundry creditors in the City of Baltimore whom they were unable to pay. In September, 1866, Horsey visited Baltimore with a view to effect a settlement of the debts. A few days after, Benjamin Stockley followed him for the purpose of aiding him in effecting a settlement. The negotiations with the creditors resulted in their receiving fifty per cent, on the amount of their respective…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor :—
My own conclusion with respect to this case lies between the conflicting claims of the parties. I think Stockley is entitled to be reimbursed what he paid with interest and nothing more on account of the Baltimore debts. I will state my reasons. In the first place it is clearly proved and now hardly, if at all, disputed, that Stockley applied to the debts his.own money and that no part of it came from Horsey. The answers of the defendants on this point being responsive to the bill would be alone conclusive, but they are corroborated by the testimony of Edmundson. It appears…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sexton v. WheatonSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
- Slee v. President & Directors of the Manhattan Co.New York Court of Chancery · 1828
- Shackleford v. HelmCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1833
- Catlin v. HarnedNew York Court of Chancery · 1817
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kennedy v. Emerald Coal & Coke Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1943