Burnett v. Sanders

4 Johns. Ch. 503
CourtNew York Court of Chancery
DecidedJuly 31, 1820
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 Johns. Ch. 503 (Burnett v. Sanders) 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
Burnett v. Sanders, 4 Johns. Ch. 503 (N.Y. 1820).

Opinion

The Chancellor

dissolved the injunction, but without costs, as he thought this case formed an exception to the rule of practice, that when a plaintiff comes for a discovery, and obtains it, he shall pay the costs. Here the plaintiffs, who were administrators, first went to the defendant, and asked for an admission of certain specific payments, appearing from the accounts to have been made, and the defendant refused to give them the requisite satisfaction, and compelled them to come here for a discovery. As the payments were made to her, it was her duty to’have ascertained the fact, and to have afforded to the plaintiffs the information she was, or ought to have been, accurately possessed of, in the firstinstance. She has no equitable claim to the costs ofthe suit; and the doctrine of Mr. J. Buller, when sitting for the Lord Chancellor, in Weymouth v. Boyer, (1 Vesey, jun. 416.) is very reasonable, and entirely applicable ; and Mr. Maddoch (Tr. on the Pr. and Prac. in Chan. vol. 1. 176.) says, he has heard Lord Eldon approve the doctrine.

Order accordingly-

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

Related

Dennis v. Riley
21 N.H. 50 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1850)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Johns. Ch. 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burnett-v-sanders-nychanct-1820.