Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Johns. Ch. 22

Briggs v. Law

New York Court of Chancery

Decided February 9, 1819

New York Court of Chancery · decided 1819-02-09

THE bill stated, among other things, that on the 25th of October, 1817, the agent of the Lansingburgh bank applied to the plaintiff, and Mosher, and William Fan, Kirk and Joseph Smith, the endorsers of two notes given to the bank, for the balance due op them, amounting to 2,230 dollars, for security, by judgment.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1819-02-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1887

2 state decisions

2018191820183018401850186018701880decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Chancellor,

¶1without going into the consideration of the antecedent transactions, which were complicated, and the equity arising therefrom obscure and doubtful, considered that the agreement of October, 1817, as admitted in the answer, was binding in equity and conscience: On the fact of that agreement only, the interference of this Court was to be supported. He, therefore, ordered, that on the ' plaintiffs paying to the sheriff, or in Court, in twenty days, two sevenths of the debt and interest, and two fifths of the costs of the judgment and execution, that the injunction should be continued, to the end that the owner of the judgment, whether it be the bank of Lansinburgh or their assignee, might be compelled to collect the debt rateably from the defendants, Mosher, Van Kirk, Smith, Ashton, and William Briggs, in pursuance of the agreement.

¶2Order accordingly.

/4/johnsch/22 · .json · Public domain