Camden & Amboy Railroad v. Stewart
New Jersey Court of Chancery
This matter came up on a motion to overrule exceptions - to the bill, which had been referred to a master. The application was made on two grounds; first, that exceptions could not be taken to a bill for impertinence, but the proper practice was to apply to the court to strike out the impertinent matter; secondly, that the defendant had been guilty of laches in not procuring the master’s report, the reference-having been made more than six months ago.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The former practice of the English Court of Chancery was not to file exceptions to a bill for impertinence, but to apply to the court to strike out the impertinent parts. But this practice has been changed in this state, by express rule on the subject. The 58th rule, which has been adopted for many years, includes bills in the term pleadings, and if there was any doubt as to that, the 85th rule expressly names bills. The Court of Chancery in New York while in existence there, and the Supreme Court of the United States, by the rules in equity for the circuits, advisedly made the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Powell v. KaneNew York Court of Chancery · 1835