Account begins, Ridgely’s Notebook III, 466
Court of Chancery of Delaware, New Castle County.
1816-1829
Cross-bill by Du Pont, Biderman, and De Pusy against Bauduy, heard September 3, 1821. THE CHANCELLOR rules that “where the answer has been declared insufficient . . . it is no answer,” and grants decree for plaintiff, since the bill is taken as pro confesso without an answer. At this point, exceptions are taken. The case is to be heard at the adjournment of the High Court of Errors and Appeals in October of the following year.
Hearing on the cross-bill exceptions above. Counsel for Bauduy (defendant to this cross-bill) argues that the Court of Chancery
Page 225
has no jurisdiction in this cause since there is an adequate remedy at law. Counsel for Du Pont, (complainant in cross-bill) maintains that defendant cannot ignore the cross-bill, but can be required to plead, answer, or demur.
(At this point, the report ends abruptly.)