Case ID: paige-ch_3/html/0142-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Chancellor", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Satterlee vs. Bargy.
    February 23.
    A defendant may give notice of an application to dissolve an injunction, immediately upon the service of his answer, without waiting the ten days allowed to the complainant to except; but if exceptions are duly served within the time prescribed by the rule, it will be an answer to the application.
    But a party is not at liberty to give notice of an application to dissolve the injunction for a time which is within the ten days allowed by the 38th rule, for excepting to the answer.
    This was an application to dissolve an injunction and to discharge a ne exeat, upon the bill and answer.
    
      L. H. Palmer,
    
    for the complainant, objected that the application was irregular, as the ten days allowed for excepting, according to the 38th rule, had not expired.
    
      J. Rhoades,
    
    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 that if exceptions were duly served, it would be an answer to the application.
   The Chancellor

said, 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.