Fish v. Miller
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from a decretal order of the vice chancellor of the first circuit, overruling the defendant’s plea, and permitting it to stand for an answer, reserving the benefit thereof to the defendant on the hearing. The bill sought for an account and payment of monies received by the defendant as the complainant’s guardian ; and also an account against him as the executor of the father of the complainant.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from a decretal order of the vice chancellor of the first circuit, overruling the defendant’s plea, and permitting it to stand for an answer, reserving the benefit thereof to the defendant on the hearing. The bill sought for an account and payment of monies received by the defendant as the complainant’s guardian ; and also an account against him as the executor of the father of the complainant. The bill alleged various transactions of the defendant as such executor and guardian ; and that, after the complainant became of age, he called upon the defendant for an account and…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The complainant having waived an answer on oath, no answer or discovery was necessary in support of the plea, which covert the whole reí if sought by the bill. I am inclined to think, however, that by putting in this unnecessary answer, the defendant has overruled his plea; as the answer of itself, independent of the plea, appears to be *29a good defence to the whole action, although it might not have been a full answer, so far as relates to the discovery sought by the bill, if the answer on oath had not beén waived. If the defendant has fully accounted with the complainant, and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Greene v. HarrisSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1877
- Bassett v. Salisbury Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1861
- Swayze v. SwayzeNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1883
- Tompkins v. AnthonNew York Court of Chancery · 1846