Apel v. O'Connor

New York Supreme Court

Apel v. O'Connor

46 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 482

DecidedFebruary 15, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 46 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 482 (Apel v. O'Connor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Apel v. O'Connor, 46 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 482 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Pratt, J.:

Appellant claims that as application for a trial by jury was not made within ten days after issue joined, the motion should have been denied. This contention would ordinarily prevail. By neglecting to make this application within the time prescribed, the moving party would certainly be without ground of complaint had the application been denied. Yet it cannot well be held that by failure of either party to move for a jury trial, the court loses the power to seek the assistance of a jury. When a court finds itself unable to decide a cause, it would be a severe ruling, and might produce a denial of justice, to forbid resort to the wisdom of a jury.

The order appealed from "was peculiarly within the discretion of the court, with which discretion we ought not to interfere.

Order affirmed, without costs.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

Order framing issues affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pratt, J.:

Appellant claims that as application for a trial by jury was not made within ten days after issue joined, the motion should have been denied. This contention would ordinarily prevail. By neglecting to make this application within the time prescribed, the moving party would certainly be without ground of complaint had the application been denied. Yet it cannot well be held that by failure of either party to move for a jury trial, the court loses the power to seek the assistance of a jury. When a court finds itself unable to decide a cause, it would be a severe ruling, and might produce a denial of justice, to forbid resort to the wisdom of a jury.

The order appealed from "was peculiarly within the discretion of the court, with which discretion we ought not to interfere.

Order affirmed, without costs.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

Order framing issues affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/apel-v-oconnor-nysupct-1886.