Delauney v. Hermann

7 F. Cas. 388, 1 Baldw. 132
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania·Decided April 15, 1830·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

BALDWIN, Circuit Justice.

There has undoubtedly been very great delay on the part of the complainant, which is not satisfactorily accounted for; but the respondent has had it in his power, under the thirteenth and seventeenth rules of the supreme court, to compel a reply and a hearing of the cause, which has not been done. He now asks for a dismission, according to a rule of the English court of chancery, authorizing it, where the complainant lias omitted for three terms to proceed in the cause. 2 Madd. Ch. 385. As this rule has never been acted on in this court, we should deem it a rigorous proceeding to enforce it now for the first time, and therefore enlarge it till the next term, of .which notice must be served on the complainant

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

Delauney v. Hermann, 7 F. Cas. 388, 1 Baldw. 132 (circtedpa 1830).

7 F. Cas. 388 (Delauney v. Hermann) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brown v. Fletcher
140 F. 639 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan, 1904)