Mitchell v. Smith
New York Court of Chancery
In this suit, a bill of discovery was filed to aid the defence to an action at law brought against the complainants in the Superior Court of Fairfield County, in the state of Connecticut, at the suit of the defendant Smith, who is a resident of this state.
Read the full summary
In this suit, a bill of discovery was filed to aid the defence to an action at law brought against the complainants in the Superior Court of Fairfield County, in the state of Connecticut, at the suit of the defendant Smith, who is a resident of this state. To this bill, the defendant interposed a plea to the jurisdiction of the court; alleging that by the laws of Connecticut, the Superior Court, on a bill in equity brought and presented there, can compel and enforce from a plaintiff in a suit at law a discovery and foreclosure, on oath, of the matters charged in such bill, to be used as…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor :—The different elementary writers on the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery lay it down as an ^established principle, that this court will sustain a bill of discovery to aid the prosecution or defence of a civil suit in a foreign tribunal. (Coop. Pl. 191; Mitford’s Pl. 150; 1 Madd. Ch. 196.) And the case of Crow and others v. Del Ris & Vellego,[1] decided by the English Court of Chancery in 1769, is *289cited by those writers as establishing that principle. This jurisdiction, which is merely ancillary to the courts of other states, is entirely different from that which would…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Post & Co. v. Toledo, Cincinnati, & St. Louis RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Gibson v. TiltonHigh Court of Chancery of Maryland · 1827
- Ashley v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1855
- In re Application of United States Pipe Line Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
- In re United States Pipe-Line Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897