Hart v. Small
New York Court of Chancery
By a mistake of the master, the time fixed by him for the "service of the summons on the defendant to attend a reference was a few days short. But the defendant had notice in .time to have enabled him to attend; so that the irregularity in the summons was merely technical. The defendant’s solicitor made no objection; but neglected to appear before the master on the reference.
Read the full summary
By a mistake of the master, the time fixed by him for the "service of the summons on the defendant to attend a reference was a few days short. But the defendant had notice in .time to have enabled him to attend; so that the irregularity in the summons was merely technical. The defendant’s solicitor made no objection; but neglected to appear before the master on the reference. And he suffered the complainant to go on before the master, and to obtain and file the master’s report, under the belief that the summons was regular. And the complainant having entered an order, founded on the report of…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor,
said there was a technical irregularity in the summons; and that if the defendant had been prejudiced by it, he must now have an opportunity to except to the report of the master, in the same manner as he might have done if he had appeared and argued the exceptions to the answer before the master. That if the defendant’s only object was to set aside the proceedings on the ground of the technical irregularity, he should have applied to the court the first opportunity; or should have appeared before the master and made the objection, as soon as he had notice of the irregularity…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Nason v. LudingtonNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1878
- Crowell v. BotsfordNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1863
- Newman v. Woodcock, New York County Courts1896
- Graham v. ElmoreMichigan Court of Chancery · 1841
- Jones v. DunningNew York Supreme Court · 1800
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.