Buloid v. Miller
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from an order of a vice chancellor, overruling an exception to a master’s report, on exceptions to the answer of Charles Lydia White, one of the defendants. The complainant took nineteen exceptions to the answer; a part of which were for insufficiency, and the residue for impertinence. The master allowed eight of the exceptions entirely, and disallowed nine. Of the remaining two exceptions, he allowed a part of each, and disallowed the residue.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from an order of a vice chancellor, overruling an exception to a master’s report, on exceptions to the answer of Charles Lydia White, one of the defendants. The complainant took nineteen exceptions to the answer; a part of which were for insufficiency, and the residue for impertinence. The master allowed eight of the exceptions entirely, and disallowed nine. Of the remaining two exceptions, he allowed a part of each, and disallowed the residue. The vice chancellor overruled the exception to the master’s report; and considering the major part of the exceptions to the answer…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
I see no substantial objection to the form of the exceptions for insufficiency which have been allowed by the master. The principles upon which exceptions for insufficiency should be framed, have been so fully discussed in the recent case of Stafford v. Brown, (4 Paige's Rep. 88,) that it would be a useless waste of time for me again to examine that subject particularly. It is only necessary, therefore, *474for me to say that the complainant, in his exceptions, must state what parts of the bill he conceives not fully answered; setting forth the particular points wherein the answer…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. WoodSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1850
- Graves v. BlanchardNew York Supreme Court · 1850
- Thompson v. President of PatersonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1854