Avery v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

9 N.Y.S. 404, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 239, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 190
Superior Court of Buffalo·Decided March 24, 1890·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court, at trial term, denied a motion made by the defendant to stay the trial of this cause until the trial of one subsequently brought, and also denied a motion made by the defendant to stay the trial of this cause until the determination of an appeal from the first order. The-motion to stay this action until the trial of the one subsequently brought was addressed to the sound discretion of the court. It affected no substantial right, and we cannot see that there was an abuse of discretion. Such being the case, we do not think the general term should interfere. Schmidt v. Levy, 61 Barb. 496. The latter portion of the order refusing to stay the trial until the determination of an appeal from the former portion of the order was also-addressed to the discretion of the court. We do not think this order is appealable, or that the discretion of the trial court should be interfered with. Martin v. Hicks, 51 How. Pr. 355. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

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

Avery v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 9 N.Y.S. 404, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 239, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 190 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

9 N.Y.S. 404 (Avery v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schmidt v. Levy
61 Barb. 496 (New York Supreme Court, 1872)
Martin v. Hicks
51 How. Pr. 355 (New York Supreme Court, 1875)