Belmont v. Erie Railway

New York Supreme Court

Belmont v. Erie Railway

6 Abb. Pr. 442

DecidedDecember 15, 1868

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Abb. Pr. 442 (Belmont v. Erie Railway) 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

Belmont v. Erie Railway, 6 Abb. Pr. 442 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1868).

Pincite

Opinion

Cardozo, J.

It is manifestly just and proper, that pending a motion to vacate' an order, the moving party should not be compelled to prepare to argue his appeal from that order ; and the defendant ought not, as suggested by the plaintiff’s counsel, to be required to withdraw the present appeal, because in case of an adverse decision upon the motion, the defendant, if the time to appeal from the original order had then expired, might [443]*443be remediless. Neither party can be harmed, except to the extent of the delay of one term, by the stay asked for, and which is obviously, right.

The order is therefore granted.

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

Cardozo, J.

It is manifestly just and proper, that pending a motion to vacate' an order, the moving party should not be compelled to prepare to argue his appeal from that order ; and the defendant ought not, as suggested by the plaintiff’s counsel, to be required to withdraw the present appeal, because in case of an adverse decision upon the motion, the defendant, if the time to appeal from the original order had then expired, might [443]*443be remediless. Neither party can be harmed, except to the extent of the delay of one term, by the stay asked for, and which is obviously, right.

The order is therefore granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Abb. Pr. 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belmont-v-erie-railway-nysupct-1868.