Skinner v. Dayton

5 Johns. Ch. 191, 1821 N.Y. LEXIS 99, 1821 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 15
New York Court of Chancery·Decided March 28, 1821·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The Chancellor.

The irregularity complained of has been waived by the acquiescence and delay of the plaintiff’s solicitor. This Court observed, in the case of the Executors of Brasher v. Van Courtlandt, (2 Johns. Ch. Rep. 249.) that irregularities in practice, and defective notices, might be cured by neglect to complain in due season ; and that there was good sense in the practice of the Courts of law on this point. Here has been a delay of ten months ; and three terms have been suffered to elapse, after notice of the examination, and after a very reasonable offer to cure the defect had been made and declined. There is no reason or justice in the present application. The opportunity to cross-examine has been expressly waived.

Motion denied.

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

Skinner v. Dayton, 5 Johns. Ch. 191, 1821 N.Y. LEXIS 99, 1821 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 15 (N.Y. 1821).

5 Johns. Ch. 191 (Skinner v. Dayton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Waters v. Waters
7 Misc. 519 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1894)
Van Hook v. Pendleton
28 F. Cas. 998 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1848)
Burtch v. Hogge
1 Harr. Ch. 31 (Michigan Court of Chancery, 1839)