Brown v. Morgan

New York Court of Chancery

Brown v. Morgan

3 Edw. Ch. 278, 1839 N.Y. LEXIS 364, 1839 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 50

New York Court of Chancery·Decided July 1, 1839·Published

Opinion

Upon an exception to an answer, The Vice-Chancellor said: The second exception is taken, because the defendant denies any property, excepting “ his necessary wearing apparel” and does not set forth the particulars of it, nor its value. In Young v. Craft, (27 March, 1838), I held that a defendant, [279] under a similar denial, was bound to give a particular account of his wearing apparel, in order that the court, and not the defendant, might judge whether it was only such as is exempt from execution by law and could be retained by him. If there should be over one hundred dollars in value, the court might apply the excess towards satisfying the judgment debt. I am of opinion the master erred in disallowing this exception.

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

Upon an exception to an answer, The Vice-Chancellor said: The second exception is taken, because the defendant denies any property, excepting “ his necessary wearing apparel” and does not set forth the particulars of it, nor its value. In Young v. Craft, (27 March, 1838), I held that a defendant, [279] under a similar denial, was bound to give a particular account of his wearing apparel, in order that the court, and not the defendant, might judge whether it was only such as is exempt from execution by law and could be retained by him. If there should be over one hundred dollars in value, the court might apply the excess towards satisfying the judgment debt. I am of opinion the master erred in disallowing this exception.

Brown v. Morgan, 3 Edw. Ch. 278, 1839 N.Y. LEXIS 364, 1839 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 50 (N.Y. 1839).

Pincite

3 Edw. Ch. 278 (Brown v. Morgan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.