Case ID: edw-ch_1/html/0318-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Vice-Chancellor.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Byrne vs. Romaine.
    A chamber order of a Vice-Chancellor allowing farther time to answer under the- 126th Rule need not be entered in the clerk’s office. The service of a copy of such chamber order is sufficient.
    
      April 2, 1832.
    The defendant had obtained an order from the Vice-Chancdllor, under the 125th Rule of the court, for further time to answer; and he served a copy of it upon the solicitor for the complainant. The latter, considering it to be the practice that an- order upon such chamber order should be entered and served, treated the copy served upon him as a nullity: and took the bill pro confessa before the additional time so granted had expired. He, now moved for a reference as upon a bill duly taken as confessed.
    Mr. Mulock, for the application, cited Burrall v. Raineteaux, 2 Paige’s C. R. 331.
    Mr. S. B. Romaine, in person, opposed.
   The Vice-Chancellor.

-The case of Burrall v. Raineteaux related to a demurrer, and shows that this mode of enlarging time is not admissible in such cases. But I cannot think there is any occasion to enter an order in the clerk’s office for the purpose of giving force or effect to a chamber order granting further time to answer. The service of a copy thereof ought riot to have been treated as a nullity. Under the circumstances, I will not give costs against the complainant: but his application is refused.