Hope v. Brinckerhoff

New York Court of Chancery

Hope v. Brinckerhoff

3 Edw. Ch. 445, 1841 N.Y. LEXIS 480, 1841 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 15

New York Court of Chancery·Decided January 5, 1841·Published

Opinion

The Vice-Chancellor :

The cases cited settle the point conclusively, that it is not sufficient to aver, as in this instance, a residence at the time of swearing to the bill. It must show affirmatively that the defendant resided in the county to which thefi.fa. issued (out of the Supreme Court) at the time it was so issued.

Demurrer allowed, with costs; but let the complainant have leave to amend the bill on payment of costs.

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

The Vice-Chancellor :

The cases cited settle the point conclusively, that it is not sufficient to aver, as in this instance, a residence at the time of swearing to the bill. It must show affirmatively that the defendant resided in the county to which thefi.fa. issued (out of the Supreme Court) at the time it was so issued.

Demurrer allowed, with costs; but let the complainant have leave to amend the bill on payment of costs.

Hope v. Brinckerhoff, 3 Edw. Ch. 445, 1841 N.Y. LEXIS 480, 1841 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 15 (N.Y. 1841).

Pincite

3 Edw. Ch. 445 (Hope v. Brinckerhoff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.