Buchholtz v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.

59 A.D. 566, 69 N.Y.S. 682
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 15, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 59 A.D. 566 (Buchholtz v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Buchholtz v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 59 A.D. 566, 69 N.Y.S. 682 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Opinion

Per Curiam :

Upon a motion where the facts are undisputed we can find no warrant for the court’s sending the matter to a referee to take further proof. Such a practice would entail additional expense and delay, and where both sides have had full opportunity to present all the facts it is usually unnecessary to have a reference. If essential the court could have allowed or directed additional affidavits to be served by either party. It is only in a very unusual and exceptional case that a reference should be ordered to aid the court in deciding a motion.

The principal question here presented was whether the person on whom service was made was the managing agent of the defendant. That the defendant had no property in the State was not disputed [568]*568The facts bearing upon this principal question were fully presented, ■and it was the duty of 'the court on the affidavits to decide the motion.

The order is accordingly reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant to abide the event, and the proceeding remitted to the Special Term for decision.

Present—Van Brunt, P. J., Rumsey, Patterson, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant to abide event, and proceedings remitted to Special Term for decision. •

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

Related

Co-Ordinating Corp. v.Mengel Co.
152 Misc. 272 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1934)
Municipal Mortgage Co. v. Four Hundred Sixty-One Eighth Avenue Co.
195 A.D. 370 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1921)
Smith v. Western Pacific Railway Co.
138 A.D. 244 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1910)
Johnson v. Wellington Copper Mining Co.
58 Misc. 353 (New York Supreme Court, 1908)
Eddy v. Spaulding
90 N.Y.S. 1094 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904)
In re Hanlein
65 A.D. 159 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 A.D. 566, 69 N.Y.S. 682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buchholtz-v-florida-east-coast-railway-co-nyappdiv-1901.