Rogers v. Dibble
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from an interlocutory order of the vice chancellor of the fourth circuit, suppressing the deposition of Oliver Weston, a witness examined on the part of the complainants.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from an interlocutory order of the vice chancellor of the fourth circuit, suppressing the deposition of Oliver Weston, a witness examined on the part of the complainants. The object of the complainants’ bill was to correct an alleged mistake in a conveyance from Daniel Boardman to the defendant; and also to obtain a perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant from suing at law for the recovery of the land which was alleged to have been included "in the deed by mistake; and to restrain him from disturbing an aqueduct running across the premises in controversy. The…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The witness, whose deposition has-been suppressed, appears to have an interest in establishing the claim of the complainants. Although a decree in favor of the defendant in this suit would not prevent this witness from litigating the same question over again with him, it does not follow that a decision the other way is one in which he has no direct interest. If the deed is not reformed, and the defendant recovers the possession of the premises in controversy, the witness, who has a claim prior in point of time to that of these complainants, will not be concluded by a litigation…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hord's adm'r v. ColbertSupreme Court of Virginia · 1877
- Moore v. HendersonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
- Hitchcock v. SkinnerNew York Court of Chancery · 1839