Consequa v. Fanning
New York Court of Chancery
AN order was obtained and served on the plaintiff’s solicitor, for liberty to prove, at the hearing, certain exhibits therein specified, viz. certain letters written by the plaintiff to the defendants, and also an agreement between the plaintiff and one of the defendants, and also certain proceedings in the Circuit Court of the United States, for the district of New-York, and a certain order by the plaintiff on the defendants.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
[ * 482 ]
The objection to the want of four *days’ notice of the order is well taken, and, unless waived, is fatal.
(The counsel thereupon waived it.)
The old rules and practice of the Court confined the proof of papers, by examination of witnesses, viva voce, at the hearing, to deeds and copies of records. In Pomfret v. Windsor, (2 Vesey, 479.) Lord Hardwicke would not allow a receipt to be proved at the hearing, because it was an established rule, that such proof must be confined to the handwriting, and that you could not enter into an examination that would admit of a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barrow v. RhinelanderNew York Court of Chancery · 1815
3Cited by3 opinions
- Plunkett v. DillonCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1871
- Bronner Brick Co. v. M. M. Canda Co.New York Supreme Court · 1896
- Sequatchie & South Pittsburg Coal & Iron Co. v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railway Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1914