Hoffman v. Tredwell
New York Court of Chancery
On the second of July, 1834, the complainant’s bill in this cause was regularly dismissed, as to four of the defendants, with costs, for want of prosecution. An application was afterwards made to vacate the order dismissing the bill, upon excuse shown for the delay of the complainant.
Read the full summary
On the second of July, 1834, the complainant’s bill in this cause was regularly dismissed, as to four of the defendants, with costs, for want of prosecution. An application was afterwards made to vacate the order dismissing the bill, upon excuse shown for the delay of the complainant. And on the sixth of August the chancellor directed the order dismissing the bill to be vacated, on condition-that the complainant within twenty days paid to the solicitor of these defendants the costs of the order to dismiss and the costs on the subsequent application; and within four months procured the cause…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
In this case the defendants who appeared by Mr. Silliman, had obtained a regular decree for the dismissal of the bill, as to them, for want of prosecution. And by the decision of the court that decree was to stand, unless the complainant thought proper to vacate the same, by complying with the terms imposed upon her by the court, on the sixth of August. One of those terms was, that she should pay certain costs within twenty days. And if the order was not drawn up and entered as of that date, it should, if subsequently entered, have directed the costs to be paid within 20 days…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Stewart v. BergeNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1873