¶1decided that it was no objection to the motion to appoint a receiver that a motion for leave to amend the bill was pending; unless the defect in the bill, which was sought to be remedied by amendment, was fatal, or was such as to render the bill demurrable. The chancellor also held that it was no objection to such an application, that notice of a motion to dissolve the injunction had been given. But he directed the motion for a receiver to stand over, until the defendant could have an opportunity to make his motion, in the supreme court, to set aside the judgment, and have it decided.
1 Barb. Ch. 76
Barnard v. Darling
Decided September 1, 1845
New York Court of Chancery · decided 1845-09-01
This was a motion for the appointment of a receiver in a creditor’s suit. C. P. Collier, for the defendant, resisted the application, on the grounds that motions were pending before the chancellor for leave to amend the bill, and to dissolve the injunction; and that a motion to set aside the judgment on which the bill was founded was pending in the supreme court.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1893
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1845-09-01
View the full empirical analysis of this case →