Desplaces v. Goris
New York Court of Chancery
The bill in this cause was founded upon a written agreement in the French language, a translation of which was set out at length, in the complainant’s bill. The defendant Goris and the complainant were the only parties to this agreement, and it was sought to charge the other defendants through that agreement.
Read the full summary
The bill in this cause was founded upon a written agreement in the French language, a translation of which was set out at length, in the complainant’s bill. The defendant Goris and the complainant were the only parties to this agreement, and it was sought to charge the other defendants through that agreement. As the agreement, stated in the bill, was substantially admitted in the answer of the defendant Goris, the complainant’s counsel, through inadvertence, neglected to make formal proof of such agreement, and of the correctness of the translation thereof; supposing the admission in the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The neglect to make formal proof as to the execution of this agreement, and as to the correctness of the translation set out in the bill, was satisfactorily accounted for by the affidavit of the complainant’s counsel. And the case of Cox v. Allingham, (Jacob's Ch. Rep. 837,) xvas a sufficient authority to sustain the decision of the vice chancellor; if any authority was necessary to sustain a decision so manifestly just and proper. There was no pretence on the part of either of the defendants, that they had any reason to believe the agreement was not in fact executed by…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Plunkett v. DillonCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1871
- Nicks' Heirs v. RectorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1842
- Robinson v. SampsonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1846