Barrow v. Rhinelander
New York Court of Chancery
THE petition of the plaintiffs stated, that this suit had long been pending, and that on the 39th of September, 1815, the court decreed, (vol. 1. p. 550.) that the accounts between the plaintiff and the bankrupt, on the one part, and the defendant, on the other, should be opened from the 39th of November, 1790, and that it should be referred to a master to state the said accounts, according to certain principles and directions in the decree mentioned.
Read the full summary
THE petition of the plaintiffs stated, that this suit had long been pending, and that on the 39th of September, 1815, the court decreed, (vol. 1. p. 550.) that the accounts between the plaintiff and the bankrupt, on the one part, and the defendant, on the other, should be opened from the 39th of November, 1790, and that it should be referred to a master to state the said accounts, according to certain principles and directions in the decree mentioned. That in pursuance of such decretal order, James A. Hamilton, one of the masters of the court, proceeded in taking, and stating the accounts.…
1Opinion of the Court
J. V. Henry, contra.
He read an affidavit of the defendant, stating that his answer was filed on the 29th of June, 1805. That on the 6th of June, 1814, an order for publication was entered. That by an agreement before the hearing, the plaintiffs abandoned all claim for the defendant’s not collecting the moneys due on the securities for money, except as- to those in- the agreement mentioned, and that the defendant was not to be charged with moneys on securities, the payer of which was insolvent on the 4th of July, 1801. That in the course of the proceedings before the master, the plaintiffs, by…
2Cited by3 opinions
- First National Bank v. DutcherSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Dexter v. ArnoldU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1829
- McDaniel v. Franklin Railway Supply Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1935