Tilford v. Oakley

23 F. Cas. 1222
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedJuly 1, 1832
StatusPublished

This text of 23 F. Cas. 1222 (Tilford v. Oakley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tilford v. Oakley, 23 F. Cas. 1222 (Ark. 1832).

Opinion

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

This is an appeal from the decree of the circuit court of Hempstead county, pronounced in a cause wherein John Tilford & Co. were complainants, and Allen M. Oakley, defendant dismissing the complainants’ bill. The complainants filed their bill to enforce a decree-of the Bath circuit court df the state of Kentucky, decreeing the defendant Oakley to pay a specific sum of money. The only question for the consideration of this court is, whether a bill in chancery is the.appropriate remedy to enforce a decree in chancery for> the • payment of a specific sum of money. ‘ We think it is not the proper remedy. The complaint had a clear and complete remedy at law, by an action of debt founded on the decree. Thompson t. Jameson, 1 Cranch. [5 U. S.] 282; Post v. Neafie, 3 Caines, 22; Sadler v. Robins, 1 Camp. 253. Decree affirmed.

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

Related

Post v. Neafie
3 Cai. Cas. 22 (New York Supreme Court, 1805)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 F. Cas. 1222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tilford-v-oakley-ark-1832.