¶1The Chancellor:—The object of the late rule of this court in relation to exceptions for scandal or impertinence, was to require the party excepting to point out the objectionable passages with such clearness and precision that the adverse party might, from the exceptions, ascertain what was to be stricken out or altered, if the exceptions were submitted to by him or allowed by the master; and that the proper officer of the court might be enabled to comply with the provisions of the 57th rule. If there are several parts of the answer or other proceeding in the cause, which are deemed scandalous or impertinent, each should form the subject of a *separate exception; with such references to the scandalous or impertinent matter, or the pages in which it is contained, as to enable the adverse party and the officers of the court to ascertain precisely what is considered objectionable. The exception in this case is defective in all these particulars, and ought not to have been allowed.
1 Paige Ch. 645
Whitmarsh v. Campbell
Decided December 1, 1829
New York Court of Chancery · decided 1829-12-01
The complainant after excepting to the answer in this case, for insufficiency in divers particulars which were specified in the usual manner, and under the rule of May, 1829, (the same as new rule 53,) added the following exception for impertinence: “ The said separate answer of the said defendant is impertinent in setting forth at full length divers letters and other documents, and in stating arguments and recitals instead of facts.” The master decided this exception was…
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1894
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1829-12-01
View the full empirical analysis of this case →