Case ID: nj-eq_47/html/0326-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John C. Bennett and wife, appellants, v. William H. Hamlin, administrator of William Hamlin, deceased, respondent.
    On appeal from an order of the chancellor in Hamlin v. Bennett, as follows:
    The exceptions to the master’s report heretofore filed in this cause, on exceptions to the answer filed in this cause by John CL Bennett and Mary C., his wife, coming on to be heard before the chancellor, in the presence of William M. Davis, of counsel with the complainant, and of John R. Emery, solicitor and of counsel with the defendants, and the chancellor having heard the arguments of the counsel and having duly considered the same:
    It is, on this 15th day of April, 1889, ordered, that the first two exceptions to the master’s report be overruled ; that the third" exception to the answer be amended so as to read, “that the-' complainant alleges that the defendants have failed- to answer whether John C. Bennett paid for the repairs &c. made to said house with his own means.” It is further ordered, that defendants answer specifically and fully the matters contained in the-original first and second exceptions to the answer, and also the-matter contained in the amended third exception to the answer that the defendants file said answer within thirty days from the service of a copy hereof.
    No costs allowed either party on this motion, and in default of the defendants answering within the time fixed by this decree,, that a decree pro confesso be entered against the said defendants..
    
      Mr. John R. Emery, for the appellants.
    
      Mr. William M. Davis, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

This order is affirmed as made by the chancellor.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Depue, Dixon, Garrison, Magie, Reed, Scudder, Van Syckel, Brown, Cole, Smith — 11.

For reversal — None.