Ensworth v. Lambert

4 Johns. Ch. 605, 1820 N.Y. LEXIS 161, 1820 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 38
CourtNew York Court of Chancery
DecidedSeptember 26, 1820
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 4 Johns. Ch. 605 (Ensworth v. Lambert) 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
Ensworth v. Lambert, 4 Johns. Ch. 605, 1820 N.Y. LEXIS 161, 1820 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 38 (N.Y. 1820).

Opinion

.The Chancellor

ordered the proceedings to be stayed, and that G. A. should be brought into Court, as it was a fixed rule, and essential to justice, that no decree should pass, until all necessary parties were brought in. All incumbrancers existing at the commencement of the suit must be made parties, or else their rights will not be affected by the decree and sale thereon. To save time and expense, a supplemental bill may be filed by the plaintiffs, instead of amending the original bill; and when it is used merely for the purpose of bringing a formal party before the Court, as a defendant, the defendants to the original bill need not be made parties. (Redesd. Tr. Ch. Pl. 70.) Where the objection for want of parties is made rather out of season, as in Jones v. Jones, (3 Atk. 110. 217.) the want of parties may be supplied by a supplemental bill. In that case, the cause had been once heard, and was brought on again upon the equity reserved, when the objection was raised. So, also, in Holdsworth v. Holdsworth, (Dick. 799.) parties appeared to. be wanting on an appeal from a decree at the Rolls, and the cause was ordered to stand over, with liberty for the plaintiffs to file a supplemental bill, merely to add parties.

The proceedings in the cause were, accordingly, ordered to be stayed, and the plaintiffs had leave to file a supplemental bill, in order to bring in Cr. Astor, who held the third incumbrance.

Order accordingly.

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

Related

Noyes v. Crawford
91 N.W. 799 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1902)
Prouty v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railroad
85 N.Y. 272 (New York Court of Appeals, 1881)
Gould v. Wheeler
28 N.J. Eq. 541 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1877)
Williamson & Upton v. New Jersey Southern Railroad
25 N.J. Eq. 13 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1874)
Haughwout & Pomeroy v. Murphy
22 N.J. Eq. 531 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1871)
Morris v. . Wheeler
45 N.Y. 708 (New York Court of Appeals, 1871)
Montgomery v. Tutt
11 Cal. 307 (California Supreme Court, 1858)
M'Gown v. Yerks
6 Johns. Ch. 450 (New York Court of Chancery, 1822)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Johns. Ch. 605, 1820 N.Y. LEXIS 161, 1820 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ensworth-v-lambert-nychanct-1820.