[insolvency – contempt, attachment – imprisonment for debt]

Kennedy v. Gorey

Supreme Court of New South Wales

November 1841

Source: Sydney Herald, 29 November 1841

kennedy v. william henry gorey.

            Mr. Want, for the plaintiff, submitted to the Court that the prisoner could not be discharged under the Insolvent Act, inasmuch as he was imprisoned by an attachment from the Court of Chancery. The facts of the case were these; the defendant had agreed to sell the plaintiff a piece of land, which he had afterwards disposed of to another party; plaintiff had hereupon filed his bill in equity and obtained a decree exparte, ordering the defendant to execute a release of the land to the plaintiff; plaintiff had refused to do so, and had been imprisoned by an attachment from the Equity Court.

            His Honor said he had no jurisdiction in the case; the defendant must petition the Court of Equity.

            Mr. Want then applied to the Court for the costs of attending and opposing the defendant.

            His Honor said, that as he had no jurisdiction to discharge the insolvent, he certainly had none to make an order relative to costs.