Legal Opinion

Rose v. Rose

New York Court of Chancery

Decided August 6, 1844PublishedCited by 12 opinions

This case came before the chancellor, upon an appeal by the defendant from three orders of the vice chancellor of the sixth circuit. The first order appealed from, granted the complainant’s fnotion for leave to amend her bill, by adding the allegations required by the third clause of the 163d rule of this court in relation to bills to obtain divorces. The second order directed the defendant to pay $75 to the complainant, towards the expenses of her suit.

Read the full summary

This case came before the chancellor, upon an appeal by the defendant from three orders of the vice chancellor of the sixth circuit. The first order appealed from, granted the complainant’s fnotion for leave to amend her bill, by adding the allegations required by the third clause of the 163d rule of this court in relation to bills to obtain divorces. The second order directed the defendant to pay $75 to the complainant, towards the expenses of her suit. And the third order was a denial of the defendant’s application to dissolve an injunction, which had been granted, restraining him from…

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

The excuse for not inserting ithe aver-ments in the bill, which are required by the present 163d' rule to be stated therein, was the ignorance of the solicitor of the existence of the rule. This provision was not contained in the first and second editions of the rules subsequent to the revised statutes, and was inserted for the first time in the revision of the rules in 1837. It was not a statutory requirement that these allegátions should be inserted in the bill. The rule directed it, for the purpose of preventing collusion, and to enable the court to carry out the intention…

2Cited by12 opinions

  1. Lake v. . LakeNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
  2. Collins v. . CollinsNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
  3. Forrest v. ForrestThe Superior Court of New York City · 1856
  4. State ex rel. Shrader v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Florida · 1893
  5. Grube v. GrubeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API