Merritt v. Slocum
New York Supreme Court
The plaintiff having, on the 21st of August 1851, obtained the report of a referee upon certain matters referred to him by a rule of this court, previously made in this cause, on the next day applied to the recorder of Troy, and obtained from him an order requiring the defendant to show cause, at the special term of this court to be held on the 26th of the same month, why the report should not be confirmed and why the plaintiff should not have certain other relief mentioned…
Read the full summary
The plaintiff having, on the 21st of August 1851, obtained the report of a referee upon certain matters referred to him by a rule of this court, previously made in this cause, on the next day applied to the recorder of Troy, and obtained from him an order requiring the defendant to show cause, at the special term of this court to be held on the 26th of the same month, why the report should not be confirmed and why the plaintiff should not have certain other relief mentioned in the order. The plaintiff’s counsel having moved for the relief sought by him, it was objected on the part of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Harris, Justice.
The application in this case is one which can only be granted upon notice. Such notice is required by the 402d section of the Code to be served eight days before the time appointed for hearing. But here the plaintiff only obtained the report upon which his application was founded five days before the term at which he wished to mate his motion. He therefore obtained from the recorder of Troy the order to show cause, claiming that he had authority under the last clause of the section of *351the Code already cited, to make an order prescribing a shorter time for giving notice of the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Rogers v. McElhoneNew York Supreme Court · 1860