Hoppock's Executors v. Ramsey

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Hoppock's Executors v. Ramsey

28 N.J. Eq. 166

DecidedFebruary 15, 1877

StatusPublished

This text of 28 N.J. Eq. 166 (Hoppock's Executors v. Ramsey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hoppock's Executors v. Ramsey, 28 N.J. Eq. 166 (N.J. Ct. App. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor.

Where, after a decree pro eonfesso, a party defendant, who has appeared before the master, fails to file exceptions to the master’s report within the four days required by the 88th rule, because of an agreement between bis solicitor and the solicitor of the complainant, such exceptions may, in the discretion of the court, be afterwards filed and argument thereon heard, notwithstanding his laches.

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

The Chancellor.

Where, after a decree pro eonfesso, a party defendant, who has appeared before the master, fails to file exceptions to the master’s report within the four days required by the 88th rule, because of an agreement between bis solicitor and the solicitor of the complainant, such exceptions may, in the discretion of the court, be afterwards filed and argument thereon heard, notwithstanding his laches.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 N.J. Eq. 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoppocks-executors-v-ramsey-njch-1877.