Merritt v. Blackwell

New York Court of Chancery

Merritt v. Blackwell

1 Edw. Ch. 466, 1832 N.Y. LEXIS 205, 1832 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 46

New York Court of Chancery·Decided October 23, 1832·Published

Opinion

The Vice-Chancellor.

I consider the defendant, Jacob Blackwell, cannot be compelled to put in an answer. He has conformed to the provisions of the 191st rule; and by doing so, admits he has property. The complainant, consequently, can take the bill fro confessa and have a receiver appointed to take charge of it; and the defendant can be put to as severe a scrutiny before a master as in answering. Motion denied.

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

The Vice-Chancellor.

I consider the defendant, Jacob Blackwell, cannot be compelled to put in an answer. He has conformed to the provisions of the 191st rule; and by doing so, admits he has property. The complainant, consequently, can take the bill fro confessa and have a receiver appointed to take charge of it; and the defendant can be put to as severe a scrutiny before a master as in answering. Motion denied.

Merritt v. Blackwell, 1 Edw. Ch. 466, 1832 N.Y. LEXIS 205, 1832 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 46 (N.Y. 1832).

Pincite

1 Edw. Ch. 466 (Merritt v. Blackwell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.