Deas v. Thorne
New York Supreme Court
ON the 5th May, 1806, the appellant tied a bill in the court of chancery against the respondents. From the nature of the appeal, and the decision of this court upon it, it becomes unnecessary to state the pleadings, or the facts on which the merits of the cause rest.
Read the full summary
ON the 5th May, 1806, the appellant tied a bill in the court of chancery against the respondents. From the nature of the appeal, and the decision of this court upon it, it becomes unnecessary to state the pleadings, or the facts on which the merits of the cause rest. The respondent, John Thorne, jun. filed, his separate answer to the bill, on the 6th June, 1806. Richard V. W. Thorne, filed his separate answer on the 25th June, 1806. On the 6th June, 1806, Daniel Thorne and William Thorne filed their joint and several answers ; and Henry TV. Wisner put in his separate answer, on the same day.…
1Per curiam
In the cases in which this court have ’ decided on the merits, on appeals from interlocutory orders of the court of chancery, the whole merits had been discussed before the chancellor. The party has a right to have his cause heard, on the merits, in that court, as well as here. In the case of Le Guenv. Gouverneur & Kemble, the court went far enough ; but there, the merits were discussed and deliberated on by the chancellor, before he awarded an issue. In the present case, there is an appeal from an order, directing the hearing of the cause to be postponed for want of proper parties. The…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Zane v. FinkWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1881
- Richmond v. AtwoodCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1892
- In Re the Application for the Probate of the Last Will of RossNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Esterbrook Steel Pen Manufacturing Co. v. AhernNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1879