Bank of Rochester v. Emerson
New York Court of Chancery
This was an-appeal by the defendants from an order of the vice chancellor of the eighth circuit, directing the master’s report of the sale of the mortgaged premises, and of the deficiency, to be filed as of the day when it was left in the clerk’s office by the complainant’s solicitor ; and that the order to confirm the report be entered, nunc pro tunc, as of that time.
Read the full summary
This was an-appeal by the defendants from an order of the vice chancellor of the eighth circuit, directing the master’s report of the sale of the mortgaged premises, and of the deficiency, to be filed as of the day when it was left in the clerk’s office by the complainant’s solicitor ; and that the order to confirm the report be entered, nunc pro tunc, as of that time. The complainant’s solicitor resided in Rochester, where the clerk’s office was kept, and he had been informed by the clerks in the office that his papers could not be filed, nor could other servicesbe performed for him, unless…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
There is no doubt as to the right of this court to correct or supply the errors or omissions of its clerks and other officers, whenever it can be done without detriment to the rights of third persons, and where substantial justice requires it. As no fee was chargeable by the clerk upon filing the master’s report in a foreclosure suit where the bill had been taken as confessed, it would have been the clerk’s fault, that the report was not filed 'at the time it was left in his office, if the solicitor had informed him of that fact. But the .clerk had no right to enter the order…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Burtis v. Cook & SargentSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Territory of Hawaii v. FerrisHawaii Supreme Court · 1903
- Bowman v. TallmanThe Superior Court of New York City · 1864
- Jones v. PorterNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- Ruby v. TalbottNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1889
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.