White v. Buloid
New York Court of Chancery
" These causes came befdre the chancellor upon.an. appeal " from an order made by the late equity court of the first circuit, on the 31st of December, 1829." The second suit was upon a crpss bill filed by the defendants "in the first suit.
Read the full summary
" These causes came befdre the chancellor upon.an. appeal " from an order made by the late equity court of the first circuit, on the 31st of December, 1829." The second suit was upon a crpss bill filed by the defendants "in the first suit. The defendants in the first suit, who are the - complainants in the last, dpplied to .postpone the hearing" in the* original cause» and to stay the taking of the testimony in ¿pen court before! the circuit judge, until the complainant therein had answered the cross bill. The -facts in the case are sufficiently stated in. the' opinion of the chancelló®.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The practice in relation to cross bills does not appear to be well settled, either in this state or in the English courts of chancery.' It may therefore be necessary to look into the origin of the practice, and notice the changes it has undergone, for the purpose of applying its principles to the present practice of the court under the new mode of taking proofs openly, or in open court before the circuit judges, as was done in the late equity courts. The bill and cross bill were derived from the civil law, and they answer to .the conventio and reconventio in the Roman tribunal.…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Pierce v. ChaceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Mattair v. CardSupreme Court of Florida · 1882
- Messenger v. PeterMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
- Treiber v. ShaferSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Lehman, Durr & Co. v. DozierSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.