Hart v. D. & A. Small
New York Court of Chancery
The defendants in this cause appeared by their solicitor, and put in their answers to the complainants’ bill. But the answers, upon exceptions taken thereto, being found insufficient, the bill was taken as confessed against the defendants, in consequence of their neglect to perfect their answers within the time prescribed by the order of the court.
Read the full summary
The defendants in this cause appeared by their solicitor, and put in their answers to the complainants’ bill. But the answers, upon exceptions taken thereto, being found insufficient, the bill was taken as confessed against the defendants, in consequence of their neglect to perfect their answers within the time prescribed by the order of the court. The complainants’ solicitor, thereupon, placed the cause upon the calendar for hearing, at a stated term of the court; but he neglected to give notice of such hearing to the solicitor for the defendants. (Ante, 333, S. C.) now moved for a decree,…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor
said, that where a defendant had appeared by a solicitor, he was entitled to notice of all subsequent proceedings in the cause, although he had suffered the complainant’s bill to be taken as confessed for want of an answer. That such was the decision of this court, in January, 1833, in the case of Wager v. Stickle, not reported ; where a decree, upon a bill taken as confessed, which had been entered ex parte and without notice of the hearing to the defendant’s solicitor, was set aside as irregular. That in Rose v. Woodruff, (4 John. Ch. Rep. 547,) a loose expression of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Woodward v. Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1915
- Merchants' Bank of St. Joseph v. CryslerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895
- Buck v. FischerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1873