Skinner v. Dayton

Decided March 28, 1821

New York Court of Chancery · decided 1821-03-28

MOTION on the part of theplaintifi, to suppress certain depositions taken on the part of the defendants, for irregularity, on an affidavit of the plaintiff’s solicitor, stating, that the interrogatories were left at his office, on the 11th day of May, 1820, with notice, that the witnesses would be examined before commissioners, on the 13th of May. That the solicitor was absent from home, when the notice was served, and did not return until after the day.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1894

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1821-03-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Chancellor.

¶1The irregularity complained of has been waived by the acquiescence and delay of the plaintiff’s solicitor. This Court observed, in the case of the Executors of Brasher v. Van Courtlandt, (2 Johns. Ch. Rep. 249.) that irregularities in practice, and defective notices, might be cured by neglect to complain in due season ; and that there was good sense in the practice of the Courts of law on this point. Here has been a delay of ten months ; and three terms have been suffered to elapse, after notice of the examination, and after a very reasonable offer to cure the defect had been made and declined. There is no reason or justice in the present application. The opportunity to cross-examine has been expressly waived.

¶2Motion denied.