¶1The decree in this cause must be affirmed. The judgment against Madden was an individual judgment, and as such, bound only his individual property. It however held his interest in the trust property. But the bill does not charge Madden with any fraud in confessing judgment, but only a design to hinder and delay his creditors. The final averment of fraud is only a conclusion of law.
3 Pin. 376
Prentice v. Madden
Decided December 15, 1851
Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1851-12-15
The complainants, Lewis Prentice and Catharine Prentice, his wife (formerly Catharine Yáughan), filed their bill against Madden, Moore, DeSeelhorst and others, stating in substance, that in the year 1837 a copartnership was entered into by the defendants for the ostensible object of purchasing a site for building a town on the Mississippi, in Wisconsin, called the Louisiana Company, and they appointed Madden one of the appellees, agent, to purchase, hold and convey real…
Decided 1851-12-15