New-York Fire Insurance v. Lawrence
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from a decision of the vice chancelior of the first circuit setting aside the complainant’s proceedings to take the bill as confessed, for irregularity. Five exceptions having been filed to the answer of the defendants, they submitted to the same and put in a further answer. The complainant’s solicitor deeming the further answer insufficient as to four of the exceptions, referred the answer upon those exceptions.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from a decision of the vice chancelior of the first circuit setting aside the complainant’s proceedings to take the bill as confessed, for irregularity. Five exceptions having been filed to the answer of the defendants, they submitted to the same and put in a further answer. The complainant’s solicitor deeming the further answer insufficient as to four of the exceptions, referred the answer upon those exceptions. The master reported the answers insufficient in the matters of the two first exceptions and that it was sufficient in the matters of the third and fiitii…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The common order entered by the complainant’s solicitor to answer the two first exceptions was irregular. The report having been excepted to by the complainant’s solicitor it did not become absolute under the 56th rule, until those exceptions were disposed of by the order of the court. The complainant’s solicitor should therefore have drawn up the order under the decision of the vice chancellor overruling the exceptions and confirming the master’s report. And he should have made it a part of the same order that the defendant put in a further answer to the two first exceptions…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Whitney v. Belden & BeldenNew York Court of Chancery · 1833
3Cited by1 opinion
- Buck v. . AlleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1895