Tuthill v. Lupton

Decided February 19, 1833

New York Court of Chancery · decided 1833-02-19

The bill was filed by a judgment creditor ; and the defendant admitted he had tools, furniture barely sufficient for himself and his three children, clothing, and a claim as the next of kin to his son Hiram Lupton, deceased, for a distributive share of his estate in the hands of an administrator, but could not say what amount would be coming to him on a final settlement of his son’s estate; and that, whatever might be realized therefrom was all the estate of every kind…

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1900

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1833-02-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Yice-Chancbllgh,

¶1This motion cannot be granted. The court is not in the habit of ordering an advance out of the fund in dispute for the purpose of feeding litigation: Tillotson v. Crook, 4. Mad. C. R. 172 ; 2 Simons, 40.

¶2The complainant has acquired a prima facie lien on this money ; and,’ in order to upset it, the defendant must rely upon his subsequent earnings for the means of making his defence. These are secured to him by the general charity included in the 195th rule of the court; and they are all he can have.