Scott v. Lazell

S.D. New York

Scott v. Lazell

177 F. 608, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5337

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 28, 1910·Published

Opinion

HAZEL, District Judge.

The exceptions filed by complainant to the answer interposed to the supplementary bill are allowed. The objectionable matter in paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 of the answer must be expunged. Defendants apparently have had their day in court (Scott v. Dazell, 160 Fed. 472, 87 C. C. A. 456) on the various defenses to which exceptions are filed.

As to whether the defendant Marks and the corporation were privies to the former judgment are questions of fact, which are not now before the court for decision.

So ordered.

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

HAZEL, District Judge.

The exceptions filed by complainant to the answer interposed to the supplementary bill are allowed. The objectionable matter in paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 of the answer must be expunged. Defendants apparently have had their day in court (Scott v. Dazell, 160 Fed. 472, 87 C. C. A. 456) on the various defenses to which exceptions are filed.

As to whether the defendant Marks and the corporation were privies to the former judgment are questions of fact, which are not now before the court for decision.

So ordered.

Scott v. Lazell, 177 F. 608, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5337 (S.D.N.Y. 1910).

Pincite

177 F. 608 (Scott v. Lazell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related