Boyd & Wickham v. Murray

3 Johns. Ch. 48, 1817 N.Y. LEXIS 223, 1817 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 69
New York Court of Chancery·Decided October 7, 1817·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The Chancellor.

The appointment of a receiver is quite a distinct question from that of an injunction. The cases cited principally relate to a receiver under such circumstances. Á receiver can act. He is a substituted trustee. But after injunction no person can act, and what [49] ure to become of the rights of other legatees, and of debtors and creditors? They cannot demand, or receive, or pay, for there is no representative of the estate. The power of the executor is wholly suspended. Such an extraordinary measure as an injunction, in the first instance, going to the whole power of the executor, seems not to be conformable to precedents, and might be very injurious.

Motion denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Boyd & Wickham v. Murray, 3 Johns. Ch. 48, 1817 N.Y. LEXIS 223, 1817 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 69 (N.Y. 1817).

3 Johns. Ch. 48 (Boyd & Wickham v. Murray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ex Parte Warfield
50 S.W. 933 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1899)
Irwin v. Dixion
50 U.S. 10 (Supreme Court, 1850)