Brodie v. Cronly

New York Court of Chancery

Brodie v. Cronly

3 Edw. Ch. 355, 1839 N.Y. LEXIS 316, 1839 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1

DecidedNovember 11, 1839

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Edw. Ch. 355 (Brodie v. Cronly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brodie v. Cronly, 3 Edw. Ch. 355, 1839 N.Y. LEXIS 316, 1839 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1 (N.Y. 1839).

Pincite

Opinion

The Vice-Chancellor :

It was irregular to ante-date the subpoena and injunction. Process must be tested on the day it is issued : Rule 119. Any other practice in this respect] is calculated to mislead ; and would be productive of confusion and disorder in ascertaining the time of filing creditors’ bills, as the date of the injunction may be looked to as evidence of the time when the bill was filed. This irregularity, however, has been waived as respects the subpoena, by the defendant’s voluntary appearance upon it; but, in regard to the injunction, I think there has been no waiver; and it must be set aside for the irregularity, with costs of this motion to be taxed.

The complainant having procured an assignment from the defendant to the receiver in the cause, it may be a matter of no importance to have an injunction in existence; but, upon payment of the costs of the motion, he may have leave to take out and serve an injunction de novo under the order allowing an injunction in the first instance.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The Vice-Chancellor :

It was irregular to ante-date the subpoena and injunction. Process must be tested on the day it is issued : Rule 119. Any other practice in this respect] is calculated to mislead ; and would be productive of confusion and disorder in ascertaining the time of filing creditors’ bills, as the date of the injunction may be looked to as evidence of the time when the bill was filed. This irregularity, however, has been waived as respects the subpoena, by the defendant’s voluntary appearance upon it; but, in regard to the injunction, I think there has been no waiver; and it must be set aside for the irregularity, with costs of this motion to be taxed.

The complainant having procured an assignment from the defendant to the receiver in the cause, it may be a matter of no importance to have an injunction in existence; but, upon payment of the costs of the motion, he may have leave to take out and serve an injunction de novo under the order allowing an injunction in the first instance.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Edw. Ch. 355, 1839 N.Y. LEXIS 316, 1839 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brodie-v-cronly-nychanct-1839.