¶1said, that decision was not intended to authorize the defendant to give notice of the motion for a time which would not allow the complainant the full period of ten days, prescribed by the 38th rule, to file and serve his exceptions, before the motion could be heard. That it was irregular to give the notice for a day which was within the time, limited by that rule, for excepting; as, by the next rule, the motion could not be heard within that time.
3 Paige Ch. 142
Satterlee v. Bargy
Decided February 23, 1831
New York Court of Chancery · decided 1831-02-23
This was an application to dissolve an injunction and to discharge a ne exeat, upon the bill and answer. for the complainant, objected that the application was irregular, as the ten days allowed for excepting, according to the 38th rule, had not expired. for the defendant, cited the case of Pell v. Gasman, decided in November, 1830, in which the chancellor said the defendant might, at the time of serving his answer, give notice of a motion to dissolve the injunction; but…
Decided 1831-02-23