Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Wend. 173

Chapman v. Hammersley

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · decided 1829-12-15

Motion to dismiss appeal. In September, 1826, Chapman filed a bill in chancery against the respondents, stating, that Hammersley and himself as trustees for Jessy Ann Dyett, and her husband Joshua Dyett, purchased and became seised in May, 1823, of a certain manufacturing establishment, called the Dutchess Cotton Factory, subject to a certain agreement between the appellant and the respondents.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1829-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 1894

8 state decisions

3018291830184018501860187018801890decided

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 →

Mr. Justice Marcy.

¶1The order made by the chancellor cannot affect the merits of the cause, and therefore is not the subject of appeal. It is aside of the merits, and relates only to the preservation of the property. The rights of the respective parties are not passed upon. Besides the sale will be public and open to the competition of the parties as well as strangers. The presumption is, the property will bring its fair value: the appellant, therefore, cannot be injured. In his bill, he himself asks for a sale of the property after the accounts are taken; why should he object to a sale now, inasmuch as the proceeds are to be brought into court to abide such order as the rights of the parties may require after they are ascertained 1 I am of opinion that the appeal ought to be dismissed.

¶2This being the unanimous opinion of the court, the appeal was dismissed accordingly.

/4/wend/173 · .json · Public domain