Case ID: paige-ch_10/html/0502-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Chancellor", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

New vs. Bame.
    1843. December 6.
    In an ordinary creditor’s bill, the denial of the defendant, in his answer, that he has any property or chases in action, or any interest in property, is not sufficient to entitle him to a dissolution of the injunction restraining him from assigning or disposing of his property.
    This was an application to dissolve the injunction granted upon an ordinary creditor’s bill, against the judgment debtor, upon the answer of the defendant denying that he had any property, or an interest in any property, or choses in action, whatever.
    
      H. Miller, for the complainant.
    
      E. Newton, for the defendant.
   The Chancellor

said the denial of property, by the answer of the defendant, was not such a denial of the whole equity of the bill as entitled him to a dissolution of the injunction which restrained him from disposing of his property j that if he had no property which could be affected by the injunction, the retaining of that process could not possibly injure him ; and that if he had property,’notwithstanding the denial in the answer, it was of importance to the complainant to retain the injunction, to protect such property from being disposed of by the defendant.

Motion to dissolve the injunction denied.