Sterry v. Arden
New York Court of Chancery
BILLS were filed for an account of rents and profits, &c. of two lots of land, conveyed by James Arden, the defendant, to De Witt Clinton and others, in trust, for the plaintiffs, Louisa Ann, and Eliza, who are the daughters of the defendant, Arden, by deeds delivered to them, the 25th of December, 1805, and, afterwards, in 1807, redelivered by them to their father, and in 1809, depositedj by him, with Clinton.
Read the full summary
BILLS were filed for an account of rents and profits, &c. of two lots of land, conveyed by James Arden, the defendant, to De Witt Clinton and others, in trust, for the plaintiffs, Louisa Ann, and Eliza, who are the daughters of the defendant, Arden, by deeds delivered to them, the 25th of December, 1805, and, afterwards, in 1807, redelivered by them to their father, and in 1809, depositedj by him, with Clinton. Louisa Ann married with the plaintiff, Sterry, in December, 1809. The defendant, Ardqn, then sold the lot to Philip Verplank. ■ Rules for publication were passed in the cause, about…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
This is an application to the discretion of the court, like the application to ¡put off a trial at law; and if Í could perceive any thing like evasion in the deposition alluded to, I should feel strongly inclined to grant the motion ; and, especially, considering that the plaintiffs, in the two suits, are witnesses for each other, and have similar interests, dependingupon the same point, in litigation. But I do not discover any just ground for the charge of intentional evasion, in the answer to the first cross interrogator)^ The interrogatory was quite general, and not pointed…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Field v. SchieffelinNew York Court of Chancery · 1823
- Gouverneur v. ElmendorfNew York Court of Chancery · 1820
- Parish v. GearWisconsin Supreme Court · 1842