Legal Opinion

New-York Chemical Co. v. Flowers

New York Court of Chancery

Decided August 1, 1837PublishedCited by 2 opinions

This was a bill of forelosure and the defendant Martin Flowers put in an answer sworn to by himself only and not by his wife.

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor

decided that a joint answer of the husband and wife must be sworn to by both, unless the complainant consents to receive the answer of both upon the oath of the husband only. And that in this case, as the answer was probably put in merely for delay, the husband not pretending that he had any valid defence, the answer must be taken off the files, and an order to take the bill as confessed must be entered.

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bailey Washing Machine Co. v. YoungU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1874
  2. Harley v. RitterNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1859