Livingston v. Livingston

New York Court of Chancery

Livingston v. Livingston

4 Paige Ch. 111, 1833 N.Y. LEXIS 150, 1833 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 74

CourtNew York Court of Chancery

DecidedJune 18, 1833

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 4 Paige Ch. 111 (Livingston v. Livingston) 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

Livingston v. Livingston, 4 Paige Ch. 111, 1833 N.Y. LEXIS 150, 1833 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 74 (N.Y. 1833).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor

said the provisions of the thirty-ninth rule were not applicable to the case of an answer to which the complainant could not except for insufficiency. That by the English practice, as sanctioned by modern decisions, the reference of an answer for impertinence was sufficient cause to be shown in answer to an application to dissolve the common injunction. But that arose from the fact that no exceptions for insufficiency could be filed until after the exceptions for impertinence were disposed of. (Hunt v. Thomas, 2 Anst. Rep. 591. Fisher v. Bailey, 12 Vez. 19.) That the reasons upon which the English practice had been adopted did not apply to the case of an answer to which the complainant had waived his right to except for insufficiency. That by the practice in this court, exceptions for scandal or impertinence and exceptions for insufficiency were to be taken at the same [112]*112time and in the same manner. If, therefore, the whole equity of the bill was denied, it was no answer to the application to dissolve the injunction, that the defendant had gone further and incorporated in his pleading other matters, which were scandalous or otherwise irrelevant.

The motion was then disposed of on its merits.

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

The Chancellor

said the provisions of the thirty-ninth rule were not applicable to the case of an answer to which the complainant could not except for insufficiency. That by the English practice, as sanctioned by modern decisions, the reference of an answer for impertinence was sufficient cause to be shown in answer to an application to dissolve the common injunction. But that arose from the fact that no exceptions for insufficiency could be filed until after the exceptions for impertinence were disposed of. (Hunt v. Thomas, 2 Anst. Rep. 591. Fisher v. Bailey, 12 Vez. 19.) That the reasons upon which the English practice had been adopted did not apply to the case of an answer to which the complainant had waived his right to except for insufficiency. That by the practice in this court, exceptions for scandal or impertinence and exceptions for insufficiency were to be taken at the same [112]*112time and in the same manner. If, therefore, the whole equity of the bill was denied, it was no answer to the application to dissolve the injunction, that the defendant had gone further and incorporated in his pleading other matters, which were scandalous or otherwise irrelevant.

The motion was then disposed of on its merits.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Paige Ch. 111, 1833 N.Y. LEXIS 150, 1833 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/livingston-v-livingston-nychanct-1833.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack