McVickar v. Wolcott

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

McVickar v. Wolcott

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 84

CourtCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

DecidedJuly 1, 1799

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 84 (McVickar v. Wolcott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McVickar v. Wolcott, 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 84 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1799).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court of Errors reversed the order. Van Ness and [85]*85Spencer, Js., delivering opinions in favor of reversal, and Kent, Ch., declaring himself of the same opinion. The court first decided a preliminary question, as to the right to appeal from such an order, holding it to be within their jurisdiction by the statute regulating the proceedings of the Court of Errors.

The court also held, that a Court of Chancery will aid a defendant in obtaining a discovery before a trial at law, and not after. Van Ness, J., says : “ Granting for a moment that such answer would have furnished the respondents with a complete defence, still as they omitted to take the necessary steps to possess themselves of that answer, before the trial at law, which they might, and if they deemed it important, ought to have pursued, they are now too late. I am satisfied that the appellants, notwithstanding they have answered the bill, are at full liberty to avail themselves of this objection.”

Spencer, J.,

held the same doctrine, and the order was accordingly reversed.

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

The Court of Errors reversed the order. Van Ness and [85]*85Spencer, Js., delivering opinions in favor of reversal, and Kent, Ch., declaring himself of the same opinion. The court first decided a preliminary question, as to the right to appeal from such an order, holding it to be within their jurisdiction by the statute regulating the proceedings of the Court of Errors.

The court also held, that a Court of Chancery will aid a defendant in obtaining a discovery before a trial at law, and not after. Van Ness, J., says : “ Granting for a moment that such answer would have furnished the respondents with a complete defence, still as they omitted to take the necessary steps to possess themselves of that answer, before the trial at law, which they might, and if they deemed it important, ought to have pursued, they are now too late. I am satisfied that the appellants, notwithstanding they have answered the bill, are at full liberty to avail themselves of this objection.”

Spencer, J.,

held the same doctrine, and the order was accordingly reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcvickar-v-wolcott-nycterr-1799.