Murray v. Hay
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application, oh the part of the complainants, to open an order entered by tlie defendant to close the proofs, and to allow farther timé for the complainants to take testimony in this cause. And a second application was made, for leave to amend the complainants’ bill, by striking out the name of Murray as one of the complainants therein.
Read the full summary
This was an application, oh the part of the complainants, to open an order entered by tlie defendant to close the proofs, and to allow farther timé for the complainants to take testimony in this cause. And a second application was made, for leave to amend the complainants’ bill, by striking out the name of Murray as one of the complainants therein. Thé defendant’s solicitor, on the 10th of June, 1835, entered an order that the complainants produce witnesses in this causé within forty days after notice of the order, and served a notice óf such order upon the solicitor for the complainants the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The objection that the order to produce witnesses was not entered in the proper form is not well taken. By the practice of the English court of chancery, and as it formerly existed here, either party who wished to close the proofs was obliged to enter a rule that the adverse party produce his witnesses; and at the expiration of the time allowed by that order, he entered the order nisi to pass publication. ' By this last order both parties were precluded from examining farther witnesses, after the expiration of the eight days, unless an order to enlarge publication had been…
2Cited by35 opinions
- Strobel v. . Kerr Salt Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Lynch v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Mitchell v. . ThorneNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Cadigan v. BrownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Palmer v. WaddellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1879
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.