Hyslop v. Powers

New York Court of Chancery

Hyslop v. Powers

9 Paige Ch. 322, 1841 N.Y. LEXIS 542, 1841 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 110

CourtNew York Court of Chancery

DecidedOctober 5, 1841

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 9 Paige Ch. 322 (Hyslop v. Powers) 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

Hyslop v. Powers, 9 Paige Ch. 322, 1841 N.Y. LEXIS 542, 1841 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 110 (N.Y. 1841).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor,

said the principle upon which the court for the correction of errors refused to sustain an appeal by a party who had not appeared to argue the cause in the court below, was not applicable to this case. That the constitution had secured the right of appeal to the chancellor in all cases, where the decision of the vice chancellor or other inferior equity jurisdiction was erroneous j subject to such regulations as might be prescribed by statute or by the rules of the court. That if the vice chancellor, therefore, made an erroneous decision, upon an ex parte hearing before him, in a case in which the adverse party would not be entitled to apply to set aside the decree for irregularity, the party aggrieved by the decree was authorized to appeal to the chancellor, although he had not appeared to argue the case in the court below.

Motion denied.

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

The Chancellor,

said the principle upon which the court for the correction of errors refused to sustain an appeal by a party who had not appeared to argue the cause in the court below, was not applicable to this case. That the constitution had secured the right of appeal to the chancellor in all cases, where the decision of the vice chancellor or other inferior equity jurisdiction was erroneous j subject to such regulations as might be prescribed by statute or by the rules of the court. That if the vice chancellor, therefore, made an erroneous decision, upon an ex parte hearing before him, in a case in which the adverse party would not be entitled to apply to set aside the decree for irregularity, the party aggrieved by the decree was authorized to appeal to the chancellor, although he had not appeared to argue the case in the court below.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Paige Ch. 322, 1841 N.Y. LEXIS 542, 1841 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyslop-v-powers-nychanct-1841.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack