Franklin & Hunt v. Keeler
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from a decretal order of tie vice chancellor of the eighth circuit, overruling a single exception to the master’s report. The master allowed nine exceptions for impertinence. And the vice chancellor, being satisfitd that two at least of these exceptions were well, taken, overruled the exception to the master’s report, with costs ; bit he permitted the parts of the answer embraced by the othei exceptions to remain as a part of such answer.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from a decretal order of tie vice chancellor of the eighth circuit, overruling a single exception to the master’s report. The master allowed nine exceptions for impertinence. And the vice chancellor, being satisfitd that two at least of these exceptions were well, taken, overruled the exception to the master’s report, with costs ; bit he permitted the parts of the answer embraced by the othei exceptions to remain as a part of such answer. From this oidtr the defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The vice chancellor was right ia overruling the exception to the master’s report, with costs, if any of the exceptions allowed by the master were well taken. But as these numerous exceptions to short detathed passages in the answer, were probably put in for the mere purpose of saving the costs of the reference if it should turn out that the exceptions for insufficiency were not well taken, I think he would have been justified in refusing costs to either party on the reference. Most of these exceptions should have been overruled by the master. Not because the matter excepted to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Fitch v. AmsdenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1897
- Lee Bank v. KuchingThe Superior Court of New York City · 1860
- Brantley v. GunnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856
- Tucker v. Cheshire RailroadSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1850