Howe v. Harvey
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application for the appointment of a receiver upon an ordinary creditor’s bill; and the only question in the case was whether the bill was defective in not stating the residence and occupation of the complainant.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
It appears to be laid down in all the books upon chancery pleading, that the residence or abode of the complainant should be stated in the bill; though by the practice in this state a particular description of his calling, or business, does not appear to be necessary. The object of setting forth the residence of the complainant, is *74stated to be, that the court, and the defendant in the suit, may know where to resort to compel obedience to any order or process of the court, and particularly for the payment of any costs which may be awarded against such complainant; or to punish…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Jerome v. BigelowIllinois Supreme Court · 1872
- Coster v. Tide Water Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1866
- Matsell v. FlanaganNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1867