President of the Bank of Monroe v. Keeler

Saratoga Chancery Court

President of the Bank of Monroe v. Keeler

1 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 62

DecidedAugust 17, 1841

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 62 (President of the Bank of Monroe v. Keeler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Saratoga Chancery Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

President of the Bank of Monroe v. Keeler, 1 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 62 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1841).

Pincite

Opinion

The chancellor decided in this case that the settled practice of the court on *creditors bills is not to compel the defendant to attend at a great distance from home for the purpose of assigning his property to the receiver and submitting to an examination; but the court will direct the reference to a master near the residence of the defendant, unless there are some special circumstances in the case rendering a reference to a master in some other county necessary or proper. That the object of the 190th Rule was to save the defendant the expense of making a disclosure of his property at his own costs, and of employing a solicitor for that purpose, while by the operation of the injunction he had no means of paying such solicitor for his services. Order of the vice-chancellor modified, without costs to either party.

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

The chancellor decided in this case that the settled practice of the court on *creditors bills is not to compel the defendant to attend at a great distance from home for the purpose of assigning his property to the receiver and submitting to an examination; but the court will direct the reference to a master near the residence of the defendant, unless there are some special circumstances in the case rendering a reference to a master in some other county necessary or proper. That the object of the 190th Rule was to save the defendant the expense of making a disclosure of his property at his own costs, and of employing a solicitor for that purpose, while by the operation of the injunction he had no means of paying such solicitor for his services. Order of the vice-chancellor modified, without costs to either party.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/president-of-the-bank-of-monroe-v-keeler-nychanctsara-1841.