Webster Loom Co. v. Short

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey

Webster Loom Co. v. Short

29 F. Cas. 568, 10 O.G. 1019, 1876 U.S. App. LEXIS 1903

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey

DecidedDecember 19, 1876

StatusPublished

This text of 29 F. Cas. 568 (Webster Loom Co. v. Short) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Webster Loom Co. v. Short, 29 F. Cas. 568, 10 O.G. 1019, 1876 U.S. App. LEXIS 1903 (circtdnj 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

NIXON, District Judge.

The motion in this ease is to strike the cross bill from the files of the court on the ground that it was filed without notice to the solicitor of the defendants. As there is no proof or suggestion of notice, the motion must prevail. The rule is clear upon this point, for the reason that such a bill is of great value to the defendant in the original suit not only in giving him a discovery which may enable him better to defend, but also in giving him jurisdiction over a non-resident complainant by directing him to appear, by solicitor, when no subpona can be served. There is no law which authorizes an order of publication in suits of this nature, and the order was improvidently taken. The defendant is entitled to an order that the bill be taken from the files of the court.

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

NIXON, District Judge.

The motion in this ease is to strike the cross bill from the files of the court on the ground that it was filed without notice to the solicitor of the defendants. As there is no proof or suggestion of notice, the motion must prevail. The rule is clear upon this point, for the reason that such a bill is of great value to the defendant in the original suit not only in giving him a discovery which may enable him better to defend, but also in giving him jurisdiction over a non-resident complainant by directing him to appear, by solicitor, when no subpona can be served. There is no law which authorizes an order of publication in suits of this nature, and the order was improvidently taken. The defendant is entitled to an order that the bill be taken from the files of the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 F. Cas. 568, 10 O.G. 1019, 1876 U.S. App. LEXIS 1903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webster-loom-co-v-short-circtdnj-1876.