Legal Opinion

Hatch v. Eustaphieve

New York Court of Chancery

Decided September 15, 1839Published

The facts in this case sufficiently appear fropa the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

The Vice Chancellor.

Cross motions; by the complainant, to take from the files the answer of the *64defendants, Eustaphieve and Newbold, because it is not signed by them; by the defendants to take from the files the complainant’s bill, because it is not s¡o.ne¿ by the complainant.

It appears from the papers that the bill is not signed by the complainant, but only by his solicitor and counsel—that it was answered after obtaining further time from the complainant’s solicitor—and that the answer was signed, “ Alexander A. Eustaphieve and John A. Newbold, by T. Hastings, their solicitor.” The practice…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Denison v. BassfordNew York Court of Chancery · 1839

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API