Yates v. Woodruff

New York Court of Chancery

Yates v. Woodruff

4 Edw. Ch. 700

DecidedJune 25, 1846

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Edw. Ch. 700 (Yates v. Woodruff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Yates v. Woodruff, 4 Edw. Ch. 700 (N.Y. 1846).

Pincite

Opinion

The Vice-Chancellor :

Held, that the defendant made his application at too late a day to be let in to defend this suit. He did not excuse the delay; nor show any sufficient reason why he had omitted to answer the bill in proper season, if he really had any defence to make.

This branch of the motion was denied.

But he was of opinion that the sale by master Millard, under the decree—which directed a sale by a master “ residing in the city of New York”—and he residing in King’s County—was irregular and void; and that there must be a resale, by a master “residing in the city of New York.

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

The Vice-Chancellor :

Held, that the defendant made his application at too late a day to be let in to defend this suit. He did not excuse the delay; nor show any sufficient reason why he had omitted to answer the bill in proper season, if he really had any defence to make.

This branch of the motion was denied.

But he was of opinion that the sale by master Millard, under the decree—which directed a sale by a master “ residing in the city of New York”—and he residing in King’s County—was irregular and void; and that there must be a resale, by a master “residing in the city of New York.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Edw. Ch. 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yates-v-woodruff-nychanct-1846.