Canfield v. Morgan & Sterling

New York Court of Chancery

Canfield v. Morgan & Sterling

1 Hopk. Ch. 224

DecidedJune 1, 1824

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Hopk. Ch. 224 (Canfield v. Morgan & Sterling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Canfield v. Morgan & Sterling, 1 Hopk. Ch. 224 (N.Y. 1824).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court

had . understood the rule as alleged by Mr. Jay ; that the stakeholder, who comes here rightfully and acts with good faith, is to have his bill dismissed, with costs out of the fund; which costs are eventually to fall on the party who is in the wrong. He said, that the case of Morgan’s being without the jurisdiction, might create some embarrassment, but he did not see that it could vary the general rule. He therefore, gave an order for costs to the complainant, payable out of the fund in court.

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

The Court

had . understood the rule as alleged by Mr. Jay ; that the stakeholder, who comes here rightfully and acts with good faith, is to have his bill dismissed, with costs out of the fund; which costs are eventually to fall on the party who is in the wrong. He said, that the case of Morgan’s being without the jurisdiction, might create some embarrassment, but he did not see that it could vary the general rule. He therefore, gave an order for costs to the complainant, payable out of the fund in court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Hopk. Ch. 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canfield-v-morgan-sterling-nychanct-1824.