Nicoll v. Roosevelt
This text of 3 Johns. Ch. 60 (Nicoll v. Roosevelt) 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.
Opinion
The plea ought to be allowed; for instead of an original bill, there ought in this case to have been a bill of revivor against the representatives of Roosevelt, who had already filed his answer, of the benefit of which they ought not to be deprived. The statute (1 N. R. L. 488.) does not require or permit the suit to be abated iff case of the death of onet of the defendants. Perhaps the plaintiff may, in certain cases, be entitled to elect between a new bill and a bill of revivor, according to the dictum in the cases referred to, but it would not be reasonable in this case, after the defendants had answered.
Leave to amend the bill, on payment of costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
3 Johns. Ch. 60, 1817 N.Y. LEXIS 203, 1817 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicoll-v-roosevelt-nychanct-1817.