Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 Johns. Ch. 208

Egberts v. Pemberton

New York Court of Chancery

Decided July 1, 1823

New York Court of Chancery · decided 1823-07-01

THE bill stated, that the defendant, P., is a merchant in Albany, and being indebted to the plaintiffs, on the 8th of August, 1822, executed a bond to the plaintiffs, conditioned to pay 1438 dollars and 23 cents, with interest, being the balance then due, with a warrant of attorney to confess judgment; that judgment was entered thereon the 9th of August last; that a fi. fa. was issued, and returned nulla bona, except as to 212 dollars and 3 cents ; that of that sum the…

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1884

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1823-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Chancellor

¶1allowed the injunction, so far only

¶2as to prevent the defendant, P., from collecting and reí *210ceiving the amount of the judgments which he held against Mitchell and Hallenback. He said, that the cases of Bayard v. Hoffman, and of Spader v. Davis, (4 Johns. Ch. Rep. 450. 5 Johns. Ch. Rep. 280.) only applied to property held in trust for the debtor, and they did not authprize a general interference with the debts due to the debtor. But where there is a specific judgment debt due to the debtor, and he has no property which can be reached by fi.fa. at law, it seems to be within the principle and equity of the cases, that the judgment creditor should be enabled, by the aid of this Court, to attach that debt; and there did not appear to be any great inconvenience in giving assistance to that extent. The judgment creditor has no effectual means at law of coercing the debtor to appropriate property, so circumstanced, to the payment of the debt. The remedy by imprisonment or execution, has lost, in a great degree, its force and effect, by the indulgencies granted to the debtor under the extension of gaol liberties; and we have no bankrupt law, nor any mode of attaching the debts due to the debtor, except in cases arising under the absconding debtor act. To help the judgment creditor, so far as to secure to him the appropriation of a judgment debt due to his debtor, is perfectly reasonable, and leads to no embarrassing investigation of the business and dealings between the debtor and those indebted to him. A judgment debt is a liquidated demand reduced to certainty; and it may, without any very great stretch of presumption, be considered as so much money held in trust.

¶3The Chancellor, said, that he should, therefore, though with considerable doubt and hesitation, allow the injunction, in respect to the judgment debts due to Pemberton, with a disposition to have the question further and more fully discussed, if the defendant, P., should think proper, upon the coming in of his answer, to raise it.

¶4Injunction granted.

/7/johnsch/208 · .json · Public domain