Commercial Bank of Lake Erie v. Meach
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application by the complainants in a creditors’ bill, to appoint a receiver of the property of the defendants, who were the judgment debtors. And a cross motion was also made on the part of Durant, one of the defendants, to dissolve the injunction which had been issued restraining him from disposing of his property.
Read the full summary
This was an application by the complainants in a creditors’ bill, to appoint a receiver of the property of the defendants, who were the judgment debtors. And a cross motion was also made on the part of Durant, one of the defendants, to dissolve the injunction which had been issued restraining him from disposing of his property. The judgment was originally recovered against the defendants and E. C. Jackson, in the supreme court, as joint debtors ; and an execution was thereupon duly issued to the sheriff of the county where these defendants resided, and was returned unsatisfied. Subsequently…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
Upon the hearing of these motions I was under the impression that this case came within the principle that, upon a joint judgment against several defend*450ants, some of whom had not been served with process, all must made defendants, in a creditors’ bill, to enable those whose property was taken to satisfy the debt under the decree of the court to claim contribution against their co-defendants who are jointly liable. In such cases, unless there is an averment in the bill that those who have not been served with process so as to make the judgment at law absolutely binding upon them…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Emery v. Emery & RedfieldNew York Supreme Court · 1854
- Field v. ChapmanNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Graham v. ElmoreMichigan Court of Chancery · 1841
- Field v. ChapmanNew York Supreme Court · 1863