Studwell v. Palmer
New York Court of Chancery
This was a motion to dismiss an appeal, from an interloculory order of a vice chancellor, for irregularity. The order appealed from was entered on the 28th of October, 1834, but was never served on the solicitor of the appellant; and he saw a copy of the order, for the first time, on the 8th of November.
Read the full summary
This was a motion to dismiss an appeal, from an interloculory order of a vice chancellor, for irregularity. The order appealed from was entered on the 28th of October, 1834, but was never served on the solicitor of the appellant; and he saw a copy of the order, for the first time, on the 8th of November. The appeal bond, with a notice of the appeal, was sent to the clerk, to be approved and filed, witbin two days thereafter ; but the bond having inadvertently been drawn with a penalty of $100 only, the same was returned for correction, and was not filed until the 20th of November. Another…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The- appeal was entered within the lime limited by the statute. The parties against whom the order was made had fifteen days to appeal, after the receipt of notice of the order appealed from. And as the order was never served upon the defendants, or their solicitor, they are not chargeable with notice thereof until the 8th of November, when their solicitor first saw the order. This point was expressly decided in the recent case of Eldridge v. Howell, (4 Paige’s Rep. 457.) If the party in whose favor an interlocutory decision is made, wishes to limit the time for appealing *58theref…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Ryckman v. ColemanNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Micklethwaite v. RhodesNew York Court of Chancery · 1847
- Miles v. ClarkeThe Superior Court of New York City · 1859