Source: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Date: 1834-11-01
Jurisdiction: United States
Citation: 30 F. Cas. 869 · 4 Cranch, C. C. 499
Opinion
THE COURT, at first, had great doubt of its jurisdiction, in such a case, so as to discharge the present trustee from his obligation. But Mr. C. Cox cited the following authorities, and THE COURT, in May, 1S32, would have made a decree, but. as THE COURT required the new trustee to give security, because infants were interested, who could not consent, the decree was never signed. The authorities cited were Uvedale v. Ettriek, 2 Ch. Gas. 130; Lake v. De Lambert, 4 Ves. 592; Buchanan v. Hamilton. 5 Ves. 722; 2 Com. Dig. tit. “Chancery,” 4, W. 6, 7.