Weber v. Weitling

18 N.J. Eq. 39
CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery
DecidedMay 15, 1866
StatusPublished

This text of 18 N.J. Eq. 39 (Weber v. Weitling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Weber v. Weitling, 18 N.J. Eq. 39 (N.J. Ct. App. 1866).

Opinion

The Chancellor.

The settled practice in chancery, both in England and this state, is, upon filing a master’s report that may be reviewed by the Chancellor, to take an order that the same shall be confirmed, unless cause be shown in eight days after the service of the same; this is what is called the rule nisi. Among the few exceptions to this rule in the English practice, was the report on exceptions to answers; this needed no confirmation.

The reason was, that it was necessary to issue a subpoena for a new answer, which gave time for the defendants to except to the report, and was sufficient notice of it. As the subpoena in such case is abolished by the practice in this state, the reason for the exceptions does not exist, and the general rule requiring the order nisi in such case, must be held to apply to a master’s report on exceptions to the answer. The chancery act,

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 N.J. Eq. 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weber-v-weitling-njch-1866.