Belknap v. Tremble
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from the second circuit on a decree made upon pleadings and proofs; and a question arose, under the last clause of the 91st rule of this court, as to the place the causé should occupy on the calendar. One party had considered the matter as arising at the time the decree was entered; the other had placed the cause upon the calendar as of the time when the replication was filed in the court below.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor
said the intention of that part of the rule was to have appeal causes placed on the calendar as of the same date at which they were placed on the calendar of the court below. That on an appeal from a vice chancellor’s decree, the matter was to be considered as having arisen at the time when the bill was taken as confessed, or the plea, answer, demurrer, or replication was filed in the court below. And on appeals from the sentences of decrees of surrogates, *278or of circuit' judges in testamentary cases, the matter was to be considered as having arisen at the time of the litis…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Lynch v. MeyersNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1870
- Astor v. New York Arcade Railway Co.New York Supreme Court · 1886
- People v. NewcombNew York Supreme Court · 1912