Sandford v. Sinclair
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal by the complainant from a decision of the vice chancellor of the first circuit, setting aside an ex parte order in this cause for the appointment of a receiver, upon a creditor’s bilk The defendant was an absentee, and the complainant not being able to serve the subpoena, in consequence of such absence, obtained the usual order to advertise for the defendant to appear.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal by the complainant from a decision of the vice chancellor of the first circuit, setting aside an ex parte order in this cause for the appointment of a receiver, upon a creditor’s bilk The defendant was an absentee, and the complainant not being able to serve the subpoena, in consequence of such absence, obtained the usual order to advertise for the defendant to appear. And the ex parte order for the appointment of a receiver was obtained before the time for appearing had expired. One other ground of objection to the complainant’s suit, and which the vice chancellor…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The objection that the bill was prematurely filed, on account of an alleged irregularity, in proceeding in the supreme court after the service of the order of the circuit judge, is not well taken. Every court is the judge of the regularity of its own proceedings where it has jurisdiction of the case. And if the complainant proceeded irregularly, in issuing his execution in the supreme court, or in procuring a return thereof, notwithstanding the order of the circuit judge, the defendant should have applied to that court to set aside the execution, or the return of the sheriff,…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Turnbull v. Prentiss Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1884
- Ruffner Bros. v. MairsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1890
- Whitehead v. WootenMississippi Supreme Court · 1871
- De Bemer v. DrewNew York Supreme Court · 1870
- People v. NortonNew York Court of Chancery · 1828
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.