Vandenburgh v. Van Rensselaer
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application by the defendant to set aside an order, entered by the complainant, to produce witnesses. The answer was put in on the 15th of June, and the replication was served at the office of the defendant’s solicitor on the 15th of July. The counsel for the defendant insisted that the replication was not served in time ; and that the order to produce witnesses was, therefore, irregular, as the cause was in readiness for hearing upon bill and answer.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
Where, by the rules or practice of the court, any subsequent proceeding in a cause is required to be had within a limited time, or within a certain number of days from or after any previous proceeding, as from the entry of an order or the service of a notice or other paper in the causé, the whole of the day on which the order was entered, or the notice or other paper was served, is to be excluded in the computation of time ; so as to give the full time after that day. But where previous notice of a motion, or of any other proceeding in the suit, is required to be given, the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Aultman Taylor Co. v. . SymeNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Bemis v. LeonardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Barron v. GreenNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951
- Connecticut National Bank v. BaylesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
- Whipple v. WilliamsNew York Court of Appeals · 1849
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.