Webb v. Pell
New York Court of Chancery
The object of this bill was to review a decree of this court for errors alleged to be apparent on the face of the record. It was filed without leave of the court, and without making any deposit. Within the time allowed by law for appealing from a decree, a subpoena was taken out, and a bona fide attempt made to serve it. But it was not in fact served until after the expiration of the five years.
Read the full summary
The object of this bill was to review a decree of this court for errors alleged to be apparent on the face of the record. It was filed without leave of the court, and without making any deposit. Within the time allowed by law for appealing from a decree, a subpoena was taken out, and a bona fide attempt made to serve it. But it was not in fact served until after the expiration of the five years. A motion was now made on the part of the defendant to dismiss the bill for irregularity.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor :—The affidavit of the complainants’ solicitor shows that a subpoena was taken out with a bona fide intent to serve the same within the five years. This is sufficient to remove all objection as to the time in which this suit was brought. It was not necessary to obtain any leave to file the bill of review. That is only necessary where it is brought upon the discovery of new matter. (Newland, 190; Mitford, 78.) But the complainants were irregular in not *making a deposit to answer the costs. By the practice of the English Court of Chancery, a deposit of £50 was required on…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Hermann v. Mexican Petroleum Corp.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1915
- United States v. American Lumber Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1897
- Landram v. JordanCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1905
- Hekla Insurance v. SchroederAppellate Court of Illinois · 1881
- Eckel v. Shell, C., Products, Inc.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1933
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.