Baggot v. Henry
New York Court of Chancery
In the course of the Vice-Chancellor’s opinion in this case, relative to exceptions which had been taken to the answer of one of "the defendants, his honor made the following observations:
1Opinion of the Court
--. I apprehend that masters, as well as solicitors, do not sufficiently attend to the 106th Rule of this court, which declares it to be the duty of masters always to take into consideration the relevancy or materiality of the statement or question referred to in the exception. In the present instance, the ends of justice would have been as well and perhaps better promoted, if these exceptions had never been taken, or, when taken, had been overruled. They are, however, now before me. But I wish to have it understood, that whilst, on the one hand, I shall always hold a defendant to a full,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Waterman Steamship Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1951
- Gleaves v. MorrowCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1876
- Johnson v. TuckerCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1875
- People v. FerrarisSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1909
- Reed v. Cumberland Mutual Fire InsuranceNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1883