History
  • No items yet
midpage
Ashworth v. Wrigley
1 Paige Ch. 301
New York Court of Chancery
1828
Check Treatment

The Chancellor :—There is no allegation of fraud in these bills; they are simply for an account and payment of demands founded on contract. There is therefore nothing *to prevent the discharge, if valid, operating to exempt the body of the defendant from imprisonment for these demands. The mere fact that a certiorari has been allowed, without stating in what the proceedings before the recorder were erroneous, so that this court could judge whether there -is probable cause to reverse the same, is not sufficient. The discharge is at least prima facie evidence that the defendant is exempt from imprisonment. If there was fraud or irregularity in obtaining it, there should have been an affidavit of the fact. Whether this court would have retained the writs on an affidavit of irregularity merely, it is not necessary now to inquire. Cases of fraud are provided for in the second section of the act. (Laws of 1819, page 116.)[1] This court may hold to bail upon evidence of fraud.

The writs of the ne exeat must he discharged.

2 R. S. (4th ed.) 210, sec. 10.

Case Details

Case Name: Ashworth v. Wrigley
Court Name: New York Court of Chancery
Date Published: Dec 19, 1828
Citation: 1 Paige Ch. 301
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.