¶1Tke 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.
1 Root 279
Worthington v. Broom
Decided July 15, 1791
Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1791-07-15
To reverse a decree of the County Court in cbancerv, upon the petition of said Broom and Platt brought against them; — showing that on the 27th of August, A. D. 1774, said Aaron Kellogg was indebted to- the petitioners, the sum of £1097 18s. Id. money of New York, and for security mortgaged to them a tract of land of the value of £1000; at the same time said Aaron delivered into the hands of Titus Hosmer, Esq. attorney to said Broom and Platt, notes in his favor against…
Decided 1791-07-15