Corning v. Cooper
New York Court of Chancery
This cause had been set down and noticed for hearing, by the defendant, upon bill and answer; and this was an application on the part of the complainants to strike it from the calendar for irregularity, on the ground that the answer had not been perfected.
Read the full summary
This cause had been set down and noticed for hearing, by the defendant, upon bill and answer; and this was an application on the part of the complainants to strike it from the calendar for irregularity, on the ground that the answer had not been perfected. Exceptions were taken to the answer, and some of them were allowed by the master; but the defendant’s counsel insisted that the exceptions had been waived, by the neglect of the complainants to procure the master’s report within the time prescribed by the 54th rule of this court. He also insisted that the report was irregular, inasmuch as…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The agreement in the master’s office, to suspend the rule, in other words to waive the objection that the master’s report was not made and filed within the twenty days after the entering of the order to refer the exceptions, made the subsequent filing of the report regular. The objection that such agreement was not in writing, and signed by the parties or their counsel, is not well taken. The provisions of the 121st rule do not apply to an agreement, between the solicitors or counsel of the parties, made in the presence of the court; or to an agreement, relative to the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Dolgin v. DolginNew York Court of Appeals · 1972
- Ballou v. ParsonsNew York Supreme Court · 1873
- Ballou v. ParsonsNew York Supreme Court · 1876
- Baker v. StephensNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1869
- Guaranteed Investment Co. v. Van MetreWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914