Smedberg v. Mark

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

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.