Elmendorf v. Delancey
New York Court of Chancery
The bill stated a long narration of facts, from which it deduced to the complainants, a title to lands; and sought a discovery of certain matters, which the complainants were able to prove, at law.
Read the full summary
The bill stated a long narration of facts, from which it deduced to the complainants, a title to lands; and sought a discovery of certain matters, which the complainants were able to prove, at law. In the deduction, of title, in stating the discovery sought, and in other parts of the bill, the names of many persons were introduced; some of these persons were particularly named in the charge of confederacy; and some of the inquiries of the complainants were confined to certain of the persons who had been previously named : but the bill did not contain any prayer for process, nor did it…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The technical rule is, that the prayer for process of subpena, selects and designates from all the persons named in the bill, those who are made defendants. The plaintiff may complain and tell stories of whom he “ pleases ; but they only are defendants, against whom pro- “ cess is prayed.” Lord Chancellor Parker, in the case of Fawkes against Pratt, 1 P. Wms. 592. This bill has no prayer for process ; and according to the strictness of English forms, it would be bad, for that reason. As the writ of subpena is here issued of course, a formal prayer in the bill, can not be…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Kentucky Silver Min. Co. v. DayU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1873