Bloodgood v. Kane
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
Appeal from the court of chancery. This cause, with its decision in the court below, is reported in 7 John. Oh. Bep. 90 to 136. The appeal was from that part of the ‘^chancellor’s decree which overruled the plea of the statute of limitations, interposed by the appellants, as a bar to the bill of the respondents for the dividends or profits on share No. 41, prior to the 1st of July, 1815. This part of the case below was discussed by chancellor Kent, in 7 John. Oh.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the court of chancery. This cause, with its decision in the court below, is reported in 7 John. Oh. Bep. 90 to 136. The appeal was from that part of the ‘^chancellor’s decree which overruled the plea of the statute of limitations, interposed by the appellants, as a bar to the bill of the respondents for the dividends or profits on share No. 41, prior to the 1st of July, 1815. This part of the case below was discussed by chancellor Kent, in 7 John. Oh. Bep. 129 to 136 ; which discussion was now furnished to this court as his reasons in support of that part of the decree appealed…
1Opinion of the Court
Sutherland, J., and Golden, Senator,
delivered opinions in support of the decree in the court below, in which this court concurred, excepting Crary and Wooster, Senators. So
The decree was affirmed. [1]
See Waterman’s American Chancery Digest, v)L 2, tit. Limitations, Statute of.
2Cited by7 opinions
- Crossman Co. v. RauchNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
- Strough v. Board of SupervisorsNew York Supreme Court · 1888
- Gilmer v. FelhourMississippi Supreme Court · 1871
- Burt v. MyersNew York Supreme Court · 1885
- Neilly v. NeillyNew York Supreme Court · 1881
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.