Consequa v. Fanning
New York Court of Chancery
PETITION by the defendants for a rehearing, conceiving-themselves aggrieved by the decretal'order of the 30 th of September last; 1. Because a general account was not decreed, but only specifically ; (setting forth the specific directions contained in the decretal order, which x ' was very particular as to the mode of takings the account.) 2. Because the decree limits the charges* to be made by the defendant, to remittances and payment's, applicable to the matters charged,…
Read the full summary
PETITION by the defendants for a rehearing, conceiving-themselves aggrieved by the decretal'order of the 30 th of September last; 1. Because a general account was not decreed, but only specifically ; (setting forth the specific directions contained in the decretal order, which x ' was very particular as to the mode of takings the account.) 2. Because the decree limits the charges* to be made by the defendant, to remittances and payment's, applicable to the matters charged, whereby matters of account, to a large amount, viz. 86*000 dollars, were excluded : 3. Because the defendants are charged…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The application for a rehearing in this case has been unreasonably delayed. The defendants acquiesced in the decree, by submitting to the reference which was directed by it, and by appearing before the Master, and making their defence, by way of discharge and *366payment-, upon the principles contained in the decretal order. After the accounts have been taken and stated, and the Master’s report made, the petition for a rehearing is now presented, and it goes to the grounds and substance of the decree, in respect to the mode of taking the accounts. The affidavit of the plaintiff’s…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Mauro v. RitchieU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1827
- Smith v. SmithNew York Court of Chancery · 1820