Rogers v. Rogers
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application, on the part of the defendant H. Rogers, to set aside the execution issued in this suit for irregularity, or to stay the proceedings thereon; and for a relaxation of the costs. Both parties were dissatisfied with the taxation, and a conditional arrangement was entered into to bring the several questions before the court. This arrangement however was not carried into effect.
Read the full summary
This was an application, on the part of the defendant H. Rogers, to set aside the execution issued in this suit for irregularity, or to stay the proceedings thereon; and for a relaxation of the costs. Both parties were dissatisfied with the taxation, and a conditional arrangement was entered into to bring the several questions before the court. This arrangement however was not carried into effect. And the complainant’s ■ solicitor after waiting some time, and receiving no notice of an intention on the part of the defendant to appeal from the decision of the master, finally concluded to submit…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
Under the decree of September, 1828, it would have been proper for the defendant H. Rogers to have given notice to the complainants’ solicitor that the money was paid into court. The money having been actually paid, however, before the execution issued, and being deposited in the office where the decree was enrolled, if it had not been overlooked by the register, he would not have included that a-amount in the execution. Both parties appear to have acted *462under a mistake or misapprehension; and no order is now necessary as to the money paid into court, and neither party ' ought…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Supervisors of Onondaga v. BriggsNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Lamb v. CoeNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Hutchinson v. ReedNew York Court of Chancery · 1840
- Town of Pierrepont v. LovelassNew York Supreme Court · 1875
- Tritchler v. SmithNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1928