Bulkley v. Van Wyck
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from so much of an order of the vice chancellor of the first circuit, allowing the complainant to amend, as precluded him from waiving an answer on oath from the new parties; who, by the amendments, were to be made defendants in the suit.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellob.
The defendant in this case has no interest whatever in the question presented upon this appeal; as the answers of the new defendants, responsive to the bill, cannot be used as evidence, either for or against him, at the hearing, in relation to any matter in which he has a personal interest. If, as suggested, the new defendants are infants, their answer on oath, by their guardian, would not be evidence in their own favor ; and in that case it is perfectly immaterial to them whether an answer on oath is or is not waived, as the statutory provision on this subject is not…
2Cited by10 opinions
- In Re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of HawleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Sammis v. Wightman ex rel. MarcherSupreme Court of Florida · 1893
- Holderby v. HaganWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1905
- Simpson v. Emelia J.Supreme Court of Florida · 1874
- Jennings v. JenningsThe Superior Court of New York City · 1855
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.