Hastings v. Palmer
New York Court of Chancery
The answer of the defendants who move in this cause was put in, and a replication filed thereto in Nov; 1838. The complainant’s bill was amended in Nov. 1837, by making Thomas Bates a party defendant. The complainant had taken no steps to procure the answer of Bates, or to take his bill as confessed against him.
Read the full summary
The answer of the defendants who move in this cause was put in, and a replication filed thereto in Nov; 1838. The complainant’s bill was amended in Nov. 1837, by making Thomas Bates a party defendant. The complainant had taken no steps to procure the answer of Bates, or to take his bill as confessed against him. After the defendants who had answered had put in their answer, they moved to dissolve the-injunction issued upon filing the bill before the circuit judge, late Vice Chancellor, which motion was argued, but no decision was made thereon. The defendants who have answered, now move for a…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice Chancellor.
Motion for dismissal of bill for want of prosecution,, or for dissolution of injunction.
A portion of the defendants who have answered cannot move in the cause generally, in the way of taking proofs, until the cause is at issue as against all the other defendants. In case the cause stands for hearing on bill and answer,, as to those defendants who have answered, if the complainant does not use due diligence in proceeding against the other defendants, those who have perfected their answer may move to dismiss the bill for want of prosecution, (Rule 66,) and a proper excuse…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gleason v. GageNew York Court of Chancery · 1838
- Vermillyea v. OdellNew York Court of Chancery · 1833
3Cited by1 opinion
- S. C. Hall Lumber Co. v. GustinMichigan Supreme Court · 1884