Milner v. Milner

2 Edw. Ch. 114, 1833 N.Y. LEXIS 169, 1833 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 34
New York Court of Chancery·Decided October 7, 1833·Published·Cited by 26 cases

Opinion

The Vice-Chancellor:

The question in my mind is, whether the complainant, upon her intending to rely upon the new facts, must not file an entirely new bill ? I consider it not a case for amendment or a supplemental bill. The latter is generally filed to continue the original suit or is, in its matter, directly connected with it and because of the original bill being somewhat defective. But here, there is new substantive cause of action upon which a decree can be had without connecting it with the original bill. The complainant is here wanting to go entirely upon new ground. In fact, to make a new case. If this is to be done, it must be by a dismissal of the present bill and the filing of a new one.

I must refuse this motion.

[115] Mr: Dyckman asked for leave to dismiss the original bill without costs : the application being in the alternative ; “ or for such other order,” &c.

The Vice-Chancellor :—I cannot allow that, on the present motion; nor do I think it can be done, without costs, at any time.

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

Milner v. Milner, 2 Edw. Ch. 114, 1833 N.Y. LEXIS 169, 1833 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 34 (N.Y. 1833).

2 Edw. Ch. 114 (Milner v. Milner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Szelewa v. Windeler
159 A. 677 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1932)
Otto v. Otto
220 A.D. 130 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1927)
Cassidy v. Saline County Bank
104 S.W. 829 (Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory, 1907)
Sodini v. Sodini
104 N.W. 976 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1905)
Chicago Grain Door Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.
137 F. 101 (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois, 1905)
Smith v. Smith
99 A.D. 283 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904)
Town of Bristol v. Bristol & Warren Water Works
55 A. 710 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1903)
Smith v. Pyrites Mining & Chemical Co.
43 S.E. 564 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1903)
Campbell v. Campbell
69 A.D. 435 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1902)
Faas v. Faas
57 A.D. 611 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
Fleischner v. Bank of McMinnville
54 P. 884 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1898)
Swedish American Nat'l Bank v. Dickinson Co.
49 L.R.A. 285 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1896)
Halsted v. Halsted
26 N.Y.S. 758 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1893)
Lutz v. Lutz
52 N.J. Eq. 241 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1893)
Blanc v. Blanc
22 N.Y.S. 264 (New York Supreme Court, 1893)
Straughan v. Hallwood
4 S.E. 394 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1887)
Nichols v. Rogers
29 N.E. 377 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1885)
Cornwall v. Cornwall
37 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 573 (New York Supreme Court, 1883)
Prouty v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railroad
85 N.Y. 272 (New York Court of Appeals, 1881)
Riddle v. Motley
69 Tenn. 468 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1878)