Vermillya v. Odell
New York Court of Chancery
The sworn bill in this cause was filed in the month of Jo.auary one thousand eight hundred and thirty two. Minott was a defendant; and he put in his answer in the month of February following. The other defendants had not answered. Cross motions wrcrc now made : the complainant sasking leave to amend ; and the defendant Mitchell moving that the bill should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Read the full summary
The sworn bill in this cause was filed in the month of Jo.auary one thousand eight hundred and thirty two. Minott was a defendant; and he put in his answer in the month of February following. The other defendants had not answered. Cross motions wrcrc now made : the complainant sasking leave to amend ; and the defendant Mitchell moving that the bill should be dismissed for want of prosecution. He had entered a rule for production of witnesses and afterwards filed an order closing the proofs, although the notice of the order he thus was faulty, in not being filled up as to dale, solicitor or…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor."1
According to what is understood to be the practice, from a decision made by Chancellor Wal1 J worth some time ago, but not reported, one defendant cannot regularly enter a rule for the production of witnesses until the cause is in a state for the examination of witnesses as to the other defendants or it is rendered certain no examination can he necessary as to them by the bill being taken as confessed or it's standing on answer without replication. The defendant' Mitchell was, therefore, irregular in entering such an order. Besides the notice of the order for closing the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- S. C. Hall Lumber Co. v. GustinMichigan Supreme Court · 1884