Account begins, Ridgely’s Notebook IV, 25
Court of Chancery of Delaware, New Castle County.
1816-1829
Petition for a. writ of injunction, May 16, 1822. Bauduy has assigned the judgment in his action against Du Pont to a brother-in-law, Alexander Dechapelle. Du Pont then petitions the Court of Chancery for an injunction against the enforcement of the judgments, and stay all proceedings at law until the defendants (Du Pont) file an answer to the original bill. Du Pont alleges in addition that the judgment was assigned by Bauduy to his brother-in-law fraudulently and without consideration. THE CHANCELLOR issues an interlocutory injunction, as petitioned.
In the prayer for perpetual injunction, August 28, 1823, Du Pont alleges that Du Pont and Bauduy were partners in a woolen manufactory; that Bauduy has sold his interest in this factory to Du Pont; that the transfer of Bauduy’s interest took place in the course of a transaction whereby Bauduy conveyed his share in the woolen factory as part-payment for certain real estate which Du Pont conveyed to Bauduy; that Bauduy is still indebted to Du Pont for the difference between the price of Bauduy’s share and the balance due for the real estate; that Du Pont had filed a bill, August 1818, to compel Bauduy to account, and pay for the balance due; that Court of Chancery had decreed that bill be take pro confesso. In the present prayer for injunction, Du Pont alleges that Bauduy knew that he would be entitled to receive money from the woolen factory and none from the powder factory, and was anxious to settle the sum due from the woolen factory, but to retard the settlement of the powder manufactory, and so negotiated a sale to the Du Ponts of his interest in the woolen factory; that Bauduy fraudulently and without consideration indorsed to Dechapelle (who was aware of the fraud) the judgments against E. I. du Pont and others in the settlement of the powder factory; that Bauduy has absconded from the jurisdiction. Prayer that Bauduy and his brother-in-law Dechapelle be compelled to discount the amount of balance due to Du Pont for sale of the above mentioned real estate, and further
Page 226
that both be prohibited by a perpetual injunction from all further proceedings upon the judgments against E. I. du Pont and others.
On motion to dissolve the injunction, after argument (August 30, 1825; July 17, 1826; July 12, 1827), THE CHANCELLOR dissolves the injunction, and enters final decree. Du Ponts to carry case into High Court of Errors and Appeals.
The High Court of Errors and Appeals, July 9, 1829, affirms the appeal.
Page 227
REPORT OF LITIGATION.