McCormick v. Chamberlin
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal, by the complainant, from a decree of the vice chancellor of the eighth circuit, dismissing the complainant’s bill.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal, by the complainant, from a decree of the vice chancellor of the eighth circuit, dismissing the complainant’s bill. The bill contained various charges in relation to the dealings between the complainant, through his alleged agent, D. McCormick, and the defendants Chamberlin and Moore; but the principal claims were founded upon alleged dealings with the defendants as copartners in business, at Cuba, in the county of Allegany, previous to 1828, and upon an alleged copartnership between the complainant and the defendants, at Mill Grove, in the adjoining county, subsequent to…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
I think the vice chancellor mistook the legal effect of allowing the pleas of the defendants to stand for answers in this case. Where an answer upon oath is not waived, if a simple plea to the whole bill is allowed to stand for an answer, without giving to the complainant liberty to except to the same, and where the plea is not accompanied by an answer, so as to entitle the complainant to except without special leave, the order of the court necessarily implies that the plea is deemed sufficient as an answer; though not necessarily á full and perfect defence. But where the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Pearson v. TreadwellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- Tillinghast v. ChaceU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1903
- Whittemore v. PattenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · 1897
- Barrett v. Twin City Power Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina · 1901
- McTwiggan v. HunterSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1895
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.