Beeman v. Banta

New York Court of Appeals

Beeman v. Banta

2 Silv. Ct. App. 152, 21 N.Y. St. Rep. 932

DecidedMarch 12, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Silv. Ct. App. 152 (Beeman v. Banta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beeman v. Banta, 2 Silv. Ct. App. 152, 21 N.Y. St. Rep. 932 (N.Y. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We refuse the request of the defendant to be allowed to file an undertaking for costs only, because by virtue of his original undertaking the plaintiff has been stayed from enforcing his judgment ever since the appeal to this court was taken.

The appellant ought not to have the benefit of such stay up to the present time, and then by the filing of an undertaking for costs only, retain his appeal and leave the plaintiff in a possibly much worse condition towards obtaining the fruits of his judgment than he would have been in had the right of enforcement continued from the time of its entry.

All concur.

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

Per Curiam.

We refuse the request of the defendant to be allowed to file an undertaking for costs only, because by virtue of his original undertaking the plaintiff has been stayed from enforcing his judgment ever since the appeal to this court was taken.

The appellant ought not to have the benefit of such stay up to the present time, and then by the filing of an undertaking for costs only, retain his appeal and leave the plaintiff in a possibly much worse condition towards obtaining the fruits of his judgment than he would have been in had the right of enforcement continued from the time of its entry.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Silv. Ct. App. 152, 21 N.Y. St. Rep. 932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beeman-v-banta-ny-1889.