Williams v. Williams

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Williams v. Williams

3 N.J. Eq. 130

CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery

DecidedOctober 15, 1834

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 N.J. Eq. 130 (Williams v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Williams, 3 N.J. Eq. 130 (N.J. Ct. App. 1834).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor.

This is a proper case for an injunction, but not for a ne exeat. Here is no debt, either legal

* or equitable, due from the defendant to the complainants, nor are the complainants entitled to an account. Sucha demand is necessary to-sustain the writ. This is the general rule. In this case, there'is not even a claim for damages ; and if there were such claim, it would not be sufficient: Eden v. Rathbone, Opin. of Ch. Wil~ [131]*131liamson, Jan. 1828; Beame's Ne Ex. 37; 2 Madd. Chan. 226; 1 Jac. and Walk. 405 ; 2 Jac. and Walk. 213 ; 10 Ves. 166.

It is to be presumed that the injunction will be sufficient to restrain the party from an improper conveyance of the property; and if so, it is a matter of little consequence to the complainants whether he leave the state or remain. The suit can proceed in his absence; and if the decree be in favor of the complainants, it will operate as a conveyance in case the defendant fails to execute a deed according to the order of the court: Rev. Laws, 499. If, notwithstanding the injunction, the defendant should execute a conveyance, the proper remedy will be by attachment for a contempt; and in such case, if he had removed out of the state, the defendant would be deprived -of that -remedy, and there anight possibly be a -failure of justice. But the court cannot consent to grant this high prerogative writ, on the assumption that a party will disobey its solemn injunction, and render himself obnoxious to its censure and punishment.

The motion for a ne exeat is denied. Let an injunction issue,

The writ is only granted in case of an equitable debt or demand, and ic not granted for a mere legal demand, for which the defendant may be held to bail, except in a matter of account or in a suit for alimony: Amsinck v. Barklay, 8 Vesey, 594 ; Pearne v. Lisle, 1 Ambler, 75 ; Flack v. Holm, 1 Jac. and W. 4D5 ; Anon, 2 Atk. 210; 1 Smith's Chan. Prac. 576 ; 2 Mad. Chan. Prac. 227.

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

The Chancellor.

This is a proper case for an injunction, but not for a ne exeat. Here is no debt, either legal

* or equitable, due from the defendant to the complainants, nor are the complainants entitled to an account. Sucha demand is necessary to-sustain the writ. This is the general rule. In this case, there'is not even a claim for damages ; and if there were such claim, it would not be sufficient: Eden v. Rathbone, Opin. of Ch. Wil~ [131]*131liamson, Jan. 1828; Beame's Ne Ex. 37; 2 Madd. Chan. 226; 1 Jac. and Walk. 405 ; 2 Jac. and Walk. 213 ; 10 Ves. 166.

It is to be presumed that the injunction will be sufficient to restrain the party from an improper conveyance of the property; and if so, it is a matter of little consequence to the complainants whether he leave the state or remain. The suit can proceed in his absence; and if the decree be in favor of the complainants, it will operate as a conveyance in case the defendant fails to execute a deed according to the order of the court: Rev. Laws, 499. If, notwithstanding the injunction, the defendant should execute a conveyance, the proper remedy will be by attachment for a contempt; and in such case, if he had removed out of the state, the defendant would be deprived -of that -remedy, and there anight possibly be a -failure of justice. But the court cannot consent to grant this high prerogative writ, on the assumption that a party will disobey its solemn injunction, and render himself obnoxious to its censure and punishment.

The motion for a ne exeat is denied. Let an injunction issue,

The writ is only granted in case of an equitable debt or demand, and ic not granted for a mere legal demand, for which the defendant may be held to bail, except in a matter of account or in a suit for alimony: Amsinck v. Barklay, 8 Vesey, 594 ; Pearne v. Lisle, 1 Ambler, 75 ; Flack v. Holm, 1 Jac. and W. 4D5 ; Anon, 2 Atk. 210; 1 Smith's Chan. Prac. 576 ; 2 Mad. Chan. Prac. 227.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.J. Eq. 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-williams-njch-1834.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack