Williams v. Blakeman

Saratoga Chancery Court

Williams v. Blakeman

4 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 8, 1844 N.Y. LEXIS 308

DecidedMarch 5, 1844

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 8 (Williams v. Blakeman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Saratoga Chancery Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Blakeman, 4 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 8, 1844 N.Y. LEXIS 308 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1844).

Pincite

Opinion

In this case, the defendant, subsequent to the recovery of a judgment a§a*nst bim by complainant, was discharged under the bank-ruP* act- After which a creditor’s bill was filed against him. that the decree in bankruptcy absolutely divested the defendant of all his interest in any real or personal estate or choses in action formerly owned by him, and vested the same in his assignee in bankruptcy. And that no assignment subsequently made by him to the receiver in the creditor’s suit could give to the receiver any right or interest in such property.

The chancellor, therefore, decided that the defendant could not be proceeded against as for a contempt in neglecting to execute an assignment to the receiver; it not being pretended that he had acquired any property subsequent to the decree in bankruptcy.

Order appealed from affirmed, with costs.

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

In this case, the defendant, subsequent to the recovery of a judgment a§a*nst bim by complainant, was discharged under the bank-ruP* act- After which a creditor’s bill was filed against him. that the decree in bankruptcy absolutely divested the defendant of all his interest in any real or personal estate or choses in action formerly owned by him, and vested the same in his assignee in bankruptcy. And that no assignment subsequently made by him to the receiver in the creditor’s suit could give to the receiver any right or interest in such property.

The chancellor, therefore, decided that the defendant could not be proceeded against as for a contempt in neglecting to execute an assignment to the receiver; it not being pretended that he had acquired any property subsequent to the decree in bankruptcy.

Order appealed from affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 8, 1844 N.Y. LEXIS 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-blakeman-nychanctsara-1844.