Case Name: Palmer v. Van Doren
Court: New York Court of Chancery
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1834-10-19
Citations: 2 Edw. Ch. 425
Docket Number: 
Parties: Palmer v. Van Doren.
Judges: 
Reporter: Edwards' Chancery Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 425–426

Head Matter:
Palmer v. Van Doren.
October 19. 1834.
yn an ordinary judgment creditor’s bill, where an answer denies property and no proof is had to shew any, a ne exeat cannot be had.
A judgment creditor’s bill; and the answer denied pro. petty. Upon petition, the complainant asked for a writ of ne exeat.
Mr. D. Graham, Jr. for the complainant.
Mr. D. M. Wheeler, for the defendant.

Opinion:
The Vice-Chancellor:
In order to warrant the issuing of a writ of ne exeat república, it must not only appear that the defendant is about to depart the state, but the court is to be satisfied there is a subsisting equitable demand for which the suit is instituted: Mitchell v. Bunch, 2 Paige's C. R. 617, 618, 619.
Here, there is a legal demand: a judgment at law, which jg SpUght to be enforced against concealed property or stich as could not be taken on execution—as dioses in action. To render it an equitable demand or"such as this court has jurisdiction of, it must appear that a defendant has equitable interests and things in action exceeding one hundred dollars. This is alleged by the present complainant: but it is positively denied; and there is no evidence before me to rebut this denial. The complainant, therefore, cannot have the writ, which is granted only where it appears that the complainant has an equitable demand or some ground for sustaining his bill in this court and not where his debt or demand is entirely at law.
Motion denied.