Justis v. Eastburn

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Justis v. Eastburn

2 Del. Cas. 678, 1822 Del. LEXIS 2

DecidedFebruary 11, 1822

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Del. Cas. 678 (Justis v. Eastburn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Chancery of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Justis v. Eastburn, 2 Del. Cas. 678, 1822 Del. LEXIS 2 (Del. Ct. App. 1822).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor

had no difficulty in ordering the writ to prevent the removal of the timber thus wastefully, and to the creditor injuriously, cut. This has been done in more instances than one, in this Court. The remedy would be imperfect if the timber wantonly cut down were allowed to be removed, for timber may often be the principal source from which the debt can be paid. See 1 Ves.Jr. 93. He doubted, though, whether it would be regular to order a second writ, but here is new matter, “the cutting up and removing the wood.” In the bill this was not stated; but in the affidavit it is said that between the time of the application for the first writ and its being served, the defendant has been actively engaged in felling trees and cutting them into wood, and in hauling the wood cut up, from off the premises. This removal of the timber, as well as the cutting the wood, after the application, that is after the bill filed, is a new fact.' The removal of the wood has happened since the former order was obtained, therefore it is a proper subject for the interposition of this Court. See 2 Madd. 176. Norris v. Kennedy, 11 Ves. 565. Stone v. Tuffin, Amb. 32.

Writ ordered.

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

The Chancellor

had no difficulty in ordering the writ to prevent the removal of the timber thus wastefully, and to the creditor injuriously, cut. This has been done in more instances than one, in this Court. The remedy would be imperfect if the timber wantonly cut down were allowed to be removed, for timber may often be the principal source from which the debt can be paid. See 1 Ves.Jr. 93. He doubted, though, whether it would be regular to order a second writ, but here is new matter, “the cutting up and removing the wood.” In the bill this was not stated; but in the affidavit it is said that between the time of the application for the first writ and its being served, the defendant has been actively engaged in felling trees and cutting them into wood, and in hauling the wood cut up, from off the premises. This removal of the timber, as well as the cutting the wood, after the application, that is after the bill filed, is a new fact.' The removal of the wood has happened since the former order was obtained, therefore it is a proper subject for the interposition of this Court. See 2 Madd. 176. Norris v. Kennedy, 11 Ves. 565. Stone v. Tuffin, Amb. 32.

Writ ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Del. Cas. 678, 1822 Del. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/justis-v-eastburn-delch-1822.