Hannum v. Curtis
This text of 5 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 61 (Hannum v. Curtis) 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.
Opinion
said the rule of practice requiring a notice of motion to specify the particular points intended to be insisted on, was only applicable to cases where the opposite party has a right to explain the point objected to, by affidavit, and to cases where, by the practice of the court, the opposite party has a right to amend, or perfect his defective proceedings, on proper terms.
But that where a party moves upon the copy of any paper, intending to rely on'some formal defect therein, as a ground for setting some proceeding aside, he must, either in his affidavit or notice of motion, point out the particular defect; so that the opposite party may have an opportunity of answering the objection.
He also decided that admissions of an assignor of property, f°r benefit of his creditors, made subsequent to the execution 0f the assignment, were not evidence against the assignees.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
5 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hannum-v-curtis-nychanct-1846.