Michigan Court of Chancery, 1844

Seymour v. Jerome

Seymour v. Jerome
Michigan Court of Chancery · Decided February 15, 1844
1 Walk. Ch. 356

Counsel

E. S. Lee, for complainant, moved for leave to dismiss the bill on such terms as the Court might deem equitable., E. C. Seaman, for defendants, opposed the motion.

Seymour v. Jerome

Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

The interlocutory decree, or order, was entered by consent of parties. It admits the partnership, and the right of complainant to an account of the partnership dealings. To that extent it is an adjudication on the rights of the parties. A complainant may, at any time before there has been an interlocutory or final decree in a cause, dismiss his bill of course, on the payment of costs. This is the general rule, but the present application does not come within it.

Motion denied.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.