Wintringham v. Wintringham
Wintringham against Wintringham
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
The application here is in behalf of a creditor at large, not a judgment creditor. In Frazier v. Frazier, according to our recollection, the motion was in behalf of a judgment creditor. The case of Wiggins v. Armstrong, is analogous ; and the Chancellor, after examining all the cases, refused to grant the party relief, until he had completed his title at law, by judgment and execution. The power exercised by this Court, in staying executions and setting aside judgments, on the ground of fraud, is an equitable power; and if a Court of Chancery will not grant relief, except in favour of a judgment creditor, a fortiori, a Court of law cannot.
Motion denied. (b)
Vide Hendricks v. Robinson, ( 2 Johns. Ch. Rep. 283 .) Brinkerhoff v. Brown, Williams v. Brown, and M‘Dermutt v. Strong, ( 4 Johns. Ch. Rep. 671 . 682. 687.) Spader v. Davis, ( 5 Johns. Ch. Rep. 280 .) Brinkerhoff v. Marvin, (Id. 320.)
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.