Skinner v. Dayton
New York Court of Chancery
MOTION on the part of theplaintifi, to suppress certain depositions taken on the part of the defendants, for irregularity, on an affidavit of the plaintiff’s solicitor, stating, that the interrogatories were left at his office, on the 11th day of May, 1820, with notice, that the witnesses would be examined before commissioners, on the 13th of May. That the solicitor was absent from home, when the notice was served, and did not return until after the day.
Read the full summary
MOTION on the part of theplaintifi, to suppress certain depositions taken on the part of the defendants, for irregularity, on an affidavit of the plaintiff’s solicitor, stating, that the interrogatories were left at his office, on the 11th day of May, 1820, with notice, that the witnesses would be examined before commissioners, on the 13th of May. That the solicitor was absent from home, when the notice was served, and did not return until after the day. That the solicitor did not, to iiis recollection, receive notice from the commissioners of the day and place of examining witnesses, under…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The irregularity complained of has been waived by the acquiescence and delay of the plaintiff’s solicitor. This Court observed, in the case of the Executors of Brasher v. Van Courtlandt, (2 Johns. Ch. Rep. 249.) that irregularities in practice, and defective notices, might be cured by neglect to complain in due season ; and that there was good sense in the practice of the Courts of law on this point. Here has been a delay of ten months ; and three terms have been suffered to elapse, after notice of the examination, and after a very reasonable offer to cure the defect had been…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Burtch v. HoggeMichigan Court of Chancery · 1839
- Waters v. WatersThe Superior Court of New York City · 1894
- Van Hook v. PendletonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1848