Dumond v. Magee
Dumond, administrator, &c., against Magee and others
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
The Chancellor.
This is not a case in which a discovery is the object of the bill. As it is merely a suit for the safety of the administrator, the object of the motion is reasonable, and it would cause great and useless delay, trouble, and expense, to send a commission to the state of Ohio, for the sole purpose of taking her answer. The case of Gwillin, (6 Ves. 285.) of Bayley v. Delvalkiers, (10 Ves. 441.) and of Harding v. Harding, (11 Ves. 159.) are authorities in support of this course of proceeding.
Order accordingly.
It was directed that the answer should be subscribed by her attorney, and with a copy of the power of attorney annexed thereto.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.