Satterlee v. Bargy

New York Court of Chancery

Satterlee v. Bargy

3 Paige Ch. 142

DecidedFebruary 23, 1831

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Paige Ch. 142 (Satterlee v. Bargy) 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.

Bluebook

Satterlee v. Bargy, 3 Paige Ch. 142 (N.Y. 1831).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor

said, that decision was not intended to authorize the defendant to give notice of the motion for a time which would not allow the complainant the full period of ten days, prescribed by the 38th rule, to file and serve his exceptions, before the motion could be heard. That it was irregular to give the notice for a day which was within the time, limited by that rule, for excepting; as, by the next rule, the motion could not be heard within that time.

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

The Chancellor

said, that decision was not intended to authorize the defendant to give notice of the motion for a time which would not allow the complainant the full period of ten days, prescribed by the 38th rule, to file and serve his exceptions, before the motion could be heard. That it was irregular to give the notice for a day which was within the time, limited by that rule, for excepting; as, by the next rule, the motion could not be heard within that time.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Paige Ch. 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/satterlee-v-bargy-nychanct-1831.