Young v. Young

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Young v. Young

30 F. Cas. 869, 4 D.C. 499, 4 Cranch 499

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedNovember 15, 1834

StatusPublished

This text of 30 F. Cas. 869 (Young v. Young) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Young v. Young, 30 F. Cas. 869, 4 D.C. 499, 4 Cranch 499 (circtddc 1834).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court,

at first, had great doubt of its jurisdiction, in such a case, so as to discharge the present trustee from his obligation.

But Mr. C. Cox cited the following authorities; and the Court, in May, 1832, would have made a decree, but, as the Court required the new trustee to give security, because infants were interested, who could not consent, the decree was never signed.

The authorities cited, were Twedale v. Ettrick, 2 Ch. Ca. 130; Lake v. De Lambert, 4 Ves. 248, 592; Buchanan v. Hamilton, 5 Id. 722; 2 Com. Dig. tit. Chancery, 4, W. 6, 7.

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

The Court,

at first, had great doubt of its jurisdiction, in such a case, so as to discharge the present trustee from his obligation.

But Mr. C. Cox cited the following authorities; and the Court, in May, 1832, would have made a decree, but, as the Court required the new trustee to give security, because infants were interested, who could not consent, the decree was never signed.

The authorities cited, were Twedale v. Ettrick, 2 Ch. Ca. 130; Lake v. De Lambert, 4 Ves. 248, 592; Buchanan v. Hamilton, 5 Id. 722; 2 Com. Dig. tit. Chancery, 4, W. 6, 7.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 F. Cas. 869, 4 D.C. 499, 4 Cranch 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-young-circtddc-1834.