Lawrence v. Bolton
New York Court of Chancery
After the proofs in the original cause were closed, the complainant applied to the chancellor and obtained an ex parte order for leave to file a supplemental bill. On the filing of such bill, and without serving any subpoena to answer the same, the complainant’s solicitor entered a common order that the defendants answer the supplemental bill within forty days.
Read the full summary
After the proofs in the original cause were closed, the complainant applied to the chancellor and obtained an ex parte order for leave to file a supplemental bill. On the filing of such bill, and without serving any subpoena to answer the same, the complainant’s solicitor entered a common order that the defendants answer the supplemental bill within forty days. After the receipt of a copy of the bill, and notice of the order, the defendants’ solicitor applied to an injunction master and obtained an order extending the time to answer. He also gave notice of an application for a dedimus to take…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The defendants’ solicitor was under b mistake in supposing he was entitled to notice of the application for leave to file the supplemental bill. Such notice is only necessary where the complainant wishes to obtain a preliminary injunction, or some other special relief founded on the supplemental bill, previous to the time for the appearance of the defendants in the supplemental suit. In general, the leave to file such a bill is obtained upon an ex parte application. (2 Paige's Rep. 335.) And if it is filed without any sufficient grounds, the defendants must make the objection…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Rigney v. . RigneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Palmer v. MurrayNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- Scudder v. VoorhisNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Tappan v. EvansSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1841
- Fisk v. Albany & Susquehanna RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1870
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.