Smedberg v. Mark

New York Court of Chancery

Smedberg v. Mark

6 Johns. Ch. 138, 1822 N.Y. LEXIS 160, 1822 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 14

CourtNew York Court of Chancery

DecidedMay 29, 1822

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 Johns. Ch. 138 (Smedberg v. Mark) 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

Smedberg v. Mark, 6 Johns. Ch. 138, 1822 N.Y. LEXIS 160, 1822 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 14 (N.Y. 1822).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor denied the application, on the ground that the demand was purely legal, and not of equitable cognizance; and, also, because there was no charge or affidavit that assets had come to the hands of the defendant. This last fact was held to be indispensable by Lord Hardwicke, (Anon. 2 Vesey, 489.) as the demand arises in auter droit, and it would otherwise be holding one to bail, who would not" be held to bail at law.

Motion denied.

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

The Chancellor denied the application, on the ground that the demand was purely legal, and not of equitable cognizance; and, also, because there was no charge or affidavit that assets had come to the hands of the defendant. This last fact was held to be indispensable by Lord Hardwicke, (Anon. 2 Vesey, 489.) as the demand arises in auter droit, and it would otherwise be holding one to bail, who would not" be held to bail at law.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Johns. Ch. 138, 1822 N.Y. LEXIS 160, 1822 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smedberg-v-mark-nychanct-1822.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack