Worthington v. Broom

1 Root 279
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedJuly 15, 1791
StatusPublished

This text of 1 Root 279 (Worthington v. Broom) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Worthington v. Broom, 1 Root 279 (Colo. 1791).

Opinion

By the Court.

Tke petitioners’ right to this money is olear .and manifest, and an action of account would have lain against said Lydia for it; but as said Aaron had recovered a judgment against her, which she had satisfied by her. no tes to the said Daniel, on which he had recovered judgments and executions against her; the petitioners recovering against her at law must have been very doubtful; but had they recovered, it would have been no bar to said Daniel’s executions; that ultimately resort must have been had to chancery for the proper relief. It is clear that the petition states matter sufficient for chancery to proceed upon; that the relief granted was proper;•and that the injunction laid upon the administrator of said Daniel extends only to the debt in the executions, which was decreed to be paid to the petitioners.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Root 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/worthington-v-broom-conn-1791.