Heirs of Dyer v. Heirs

New York Court of Chancery

Heirs of Dyer v. Heirs

2 Johns. Ch. 152, 1816 N.Y. LEXIS 233, 1816 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 24

DecidedJuly 20, 1816

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Johns. Ch. 152 (Heirs of Dyer v. Heirs) 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

Heirs of Dyer v. Heirs, 2 Johns. Ch. 152, 1816 N.Y. LEXIS 233, 1816 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 24 (N.Y. 1816).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor.

The proof of payment is sufficient, and a conveyance must be decreed to the heirs of Dyer. As to the question, whether the heirs and trustees of Potter shall pay costs, it appears that they were not privy to the suit and trial at law, and there was no such improper behavior or unjustifiable defence as to charge them with costs consistently with the course of the Court. (Shales v. Barrington, 1 P. Wms. 481. Webb v. Claverden, 2 Atk. 424. Berney v. Eyre, 3 Atk. 387.) Neither party, therefore, is to have costs as against the other.

Practice

GENERAL RULE.

His Honor the chancellor this day made the following order:—■

Ordered, That whenever a defendant shall cause his appearance to be entered, but shall not cause his answer to be filed in due time, an application may thereupon be made to the chancellor (without previous notice) by petition, stating the circumstances, for an order, that the defendant answer the plaintiffs bill in such time, after service of a copy of the order for that purpose, as the chancellor shall direct, or, in default thereof, that the bill be taken pro confesso. And if the defendant shall not answer within the time limited by such order, a rule for taking the bill pro confesso may be entered, as of course, on filing an affidavit of the service of a copy of the said rule.

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

The Chancellor.

The proof of payment is sufficient, and a conveyance must be decreed to the heirs of Dyer. As to the question, whether the heirs and trustees of Potter shall pay costs, it appears that they were not privy to the suit and trial at law, and there was no such improper behavior or unjustifiable defence as to charge them with costs consistently with the course of the Court. (Shales v. Barrington, 1 P. Wms. 481. Webb v. Claverden, 2 Atk. 424. Berney v. Eyre, 3 Atk. 387.) Neither party, therefore, is to have costs as against the other.

Practice

GENERAL RULE.

His Honor the chancellor this day made the following order:—■

Ordered, That whenever a defendant shall cause his appearance to be entered, but shall not cause his answer to be filed in due time, an application may thereupon be made to the chancellor (without previous notice) by petition, stating the circumstances, for an order, that the defendant answer the plaintiffs bill in such time, after service of a copy of the order for that purpose, as the chancellor shall direct, or, in default thereof, that the bill be taken pro confesso. And if the defendant shall not answer within the time limited by such order, a rule for taking the bill pro confesso may be entered, as of course, on filing an affidavit of the service of a copy of the said rule.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Johns. Ch. 152, 1816 N.Y. LEXIS 233, 1816 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heirs-of-dyer-v-heirs-nychanct-1816.