Lyon v. Brooks
New York Court of Chancery
The bill was filed by one partner against another, praying an account and payment pursuant to the conditions of an award to which they had both submitted. The defendant had put in his answer; but several exceptions for impertinence were taken to it; and the matter of these exceptions now came before the Court upon exception to the master’s report.
Read the full summary
The bill was filed by one partner against another, praying an account and payment pursuant to the conditions of an award to which they had both submitted. The defendant had put in his answer; but several exceptions for impertinence were taken to it; and the matter of these exceptions now came before the Court upon exception to the master’s report. Two exceptions related to an agreement and payment set forth in the answer and which had occurred subsequent to the filing of the bill.
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice Chancellor
said: If there were any rule of equity pleading, by which a defendant is precluded from availing himself of matters arising between the filing of the bill and the answer, by way of avoidance or defence, there might be some ground for these exceptions. But there is not; and it certainly cannot be said that the matters set up are foreign to the case.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Wilson v. PatrickSupreme Court of Iowa · 1872
- Wormser v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1906
- Carpenter v. BellThe Superior Court of New York City · 1863
- Norris v. United Mineral Products Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1945
- Wormser v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.