Goodrich v. Rodney
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Complainant, on the 2d day of April, 1853, filed his bill in the District Court for the County of Ramsey, to which Defendants filed sundry exceptions. These exceptions were heard, and a portion of them allowed by the Court below, from which order Complainant appeals to this Court.
Read the full summary
Complainant, on the 2d day of April, 1853, filed his bill in the District Court for the County of Ramsey, to which Defendants filed sundry exceptions. These exceptions were heard, and a portion of them allowed by the Court below, from which order Complainant appeals to this Court. All of which, (in view of the following extract from Chapter 1 of the Acts of our Legislature, approved March 5th, 1853: “The Court of Chancery, and the right to commence or institute Chancery suits and proceedings, and all statutes and statutory provisions inconsistent with this act, shall be, and are hereby…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Oov/rt
Sherburne, J.
This cause is brought into this Court by Appeal from an order of the District Court allowing exceptions to the bill.
It is objected by the Complainant’s Counsel, that the proceedings in the Court were irregular, inasmuch as the exceptions were not referred to a Master. The objection, in the opinion of the Court, cannot be sustained. The duties of a Master in Chancery are not separate and distinct from those of the Chancellor, but in aid of him. Masters in Chancery were considered in England as “ assistants to the Lord Chancellor,” and Tomlin says: “ some sit in Court…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hawley v. WolvertonNew York Court of Chancery · 1836
- Van Rensselaer v. BriceNew York Court of Chancery · 1833
- McIntyre v. Trustees of Union CollegeNew York Court of Chancery · 1837
- Mechanics' Bank v. LevyNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
3Cited by3 opinions
- Davis v. HoferOregon Supreme Court · 1900
- Burden v. BurdenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1903
- Dusenbery v. HawksCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017