Rogers v. Paterson
New York Court of Chancery
After the decision of the court for the correction of errors, in this cause, the suit was revived, upon the petition of the defendant, against the executors of J. Taylor, deceased, as complainants with the surviving complainants in the original suit.
Read the full summary
After the decision of the court for the correction of errors, in this cause, the suit was revived, upon the petition of the defendant, against the executors of J. Taylor, deceased, as complainants with the surviving complainants in the original suit. And a decree was thereupon made, in conformity with the decision of the appellate court, referring it to Master Codwise to take an account of the $20,000 legacy given by J. Ellis, deceased, to the defendant's deceased wife, and of the accumulations and increase thereof, and of the stocks, securities and other property in which the same was…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
There is no irregularity in this case, in the entitling of the summons, or of the decretal order. Until the cause was revived against the executors of Taylor, their names could not properly be inserted, in the title of the cause, as complainants with the surviving executors of Ellis. But that order, of itself, changed the title of the cause, and the summons, and all proceedings subsequent to the order of revival, are properly entitled in the suit as revived. The directions for carrying into effect the decree of the court for the correction of errors being in the same order…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Brinkley v. . BrinkleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Campbell v. Justices of the Superior CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- People v. ComptonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1853
- Kaehler v. DobberpuhlWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
- Coryell v. HolcombeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1854
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.