Avery v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

Superior Court of Buffalo

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 9 N.Y.S. 404 (Avery v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 N.Y.S. 404, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 239, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avery-v-new-york-central-hudson-river-railroad-nysuperctbuf-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack