Kelly v. Israel
New York Court of Chancery
These cases came before the chancellor upon the separate appeals of the complainant, and of the defendant W. S. Warwick, from two orders of the vice chancellor of the first circuit; the one made in the two first of the above causes, and the other in the last cause.
Read the full summary
These cases came before the chancellor upon the separate appeals of the complainant, and of the defendant W. S. Warwick, from two orders of the vice chancellor of the first circuit; the one made in the two first of the above causes, and the other in the last cause. On the 18th of January, 1827, W. IsraeL and wife, being the owners of three parcels of land containing together about 376 acres, mortgaged the same to the executors and executrix of J. Thompson deceased, to secure the payment of $12,000; which mortgage was afterwards assigned to the complainant. Israel and wife conveyed these three…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The objection that W. S. Warwick has no interest in the subject matter of these orders, and has therefore no right to appeal, appears to be well taken. He has been discharged under the bankrupt act, as charged in the petition and not denied. And before his discharge he had conveyed all his interest in the equity of redemption to a trustee, for the benefit of his creditors, which interest has long since been sold by the trustee. He is, therefore, attempting to interfere in a matter, in which he has no interest whatever. His appeal must accordingly be dismissed, with costs to the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Blossom v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1866
- Mercantile Trust Co. v. Kanawha & O. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1893
- Biershenk v. StokesNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1894
- Thomas v. San Diego College Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- Ecker Bros. v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.