Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Walk. Ch. 389

Brooks v. Mead

Michigan Court of Chancery

Decided March 15, 1844

Michigan Court of Chancery · decided 1844-03-15

Motion on the part of Hale to take from the files a replication to his answer, because it was not filed within the time allowed by the rules of the Court. From the affidavits of defendant’s solicitor, it appears he never had any knowledge or notice that any replication was, or had been filed, to the answer of Hale, until he was looking over the files in the register’s office in January last, when he came across the replication.

Decided 1844-03-15

The Chancellor.

¶1I can take no notice of the parol agreement between the solicitors, dispensing with service of a copy of the replication. The S7th rule requires every agreement, in respect to the proceedings in a cause, to be reduced to the form of an order by consent, and entered in the book of common orders, or to be in writing, and signed by the party against whom it is alleged.

¶2By attending and cross-examining the witnesses, defendant waived all objections to the replication. 1 Hoff. Ch. Pr. 452. His application to the solicitors of the other parties, to assent to a commission for the examination of his witnesses, shows his understanding of the state of the pleadings. If there were no replication to his answer, he could examine no witnesses. Where, by mistake, a replication has not been filed, and yet witnesses have been examined, the Court will permit a replication to be filed nunc pro tunc. Mitf. Pl. 323; 1 Smith Pr. 336.

¶3Motion denied,

/1/walkch/389 · .json · Public domain