Dumond v. Magee

Decided November 25, 1816

New York Court of Chancery · decided 1816-11-25

THE object of the bill was to obtain a decree for the distribution of the estate of the intestate among the next of kin, so that the administrator might be protected. The defendant Catharine Hauett was one of the next of kin, and one of the claimants of a distributive share.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1816-11-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1902

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Chancellor.

¶1This is not a case in which a discovery is the object of the bill. As it is merely a suit for the safety of the administrator, the object of the motion is reasonable, and it would cause great and useless delay, trouble, and expense, to send a commission to the state of Ohio, for the sole purpose of taking her answer. The case of Gwillin, (6 Ves. 285.) of Bayley v. Delvalkiers, (10 Ves. 441.) and of Harding v. Harding, (11 Ves. 159.) are authorities in support of this course of proceeding.

¶2Order accordingly.

¶3It was directed that the answer should be subscribed by her attorney, and with a copy of the power of attorney annexed thereto.