Williamson v. Hyer

4 Wend. 170
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors·Decided December 15, 1829·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinions

Mr. Justice Marcy

said he could scarcely conceive of a case in which an appeal from an order of the chanceilor refusing a re-hearing ought to be sustained. Such application is addressed purely to the discretion of the chancellor, and [173] strong indeed must be the circumstances in such a case, to induce this court to sustain an appeal. Besides, it is very questionable whether an order refusing instructions to a master as to the discharge of his duties can be the subject of an appeal. The party is not remediless ; on the coming in of the report, if the master has omitted what he ought to have done, or on the contrary, has done what he ought not to have done, the party has a right to except to his report, and then the conduct of the master is properly inquirable into. For these reasons he was of opinon, that the appeal should be dismissed.

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

Williamson v. Hyer, 4 Wend. 170 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1829).

4 Wend. 170 (Williamson v. Hyer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Meade County Bank v. Decker
98 N.W. 86 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1904)
Stuart v. Allen
45 Wis. 158 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1878)
Coryell v. Holcombe
9 N.J. Eq. 650 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1854)
Cruger v. Douglass
8 Barb. 81 (New York Supreme Court, 1850)
Rowley v. Van Benthuysen
16 Wend. 369 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1836)
Leycraft v. Dempsey
15 Wend. 83 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1835)