Clarke v. . Lourie

New York Court of Appeals

Clarke v. . Lourie

82 N.Y. 580, 1880 N.Y. LEXIS 407

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 16, 1880

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 82 N.Y. 580 (Clarke v. . Lourie) 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

Clarke v. . Lourie, 82 N.Y. 580, 1880 N.Y. LEXIS 407 (N.Y. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Eo appeal lies from an order of the General Term affirming an order of the Special Term vacating an order of arrest where, upon any view of the facts, such decision can be upheld. An order of arrest is a provisional remedy which the court may grant or refuse in a proper case within its discretion. The exercise of such discretion is not the subject of review in this court. (Liddell v. Paton, 67 N. Y. 393 ; Allen v. Meyer, 73 id. 1; Whitaker v. Imp. S. M. Co., 78 id. 621.) The order appealed from states no ground for the decision, and the opinion of the court cannot be resorted to for the purpose of determining the reasons upon which it is based. Unless the contrary appears, it must necessarily be assumed that the order in question was made in the exercise of the discretion of the court which granted it. (Hewlett v. Wood, 67 N. Y. 394; Snebley v. Conner, 78 id. 218.)

For the reasons stated the appeal must be dismissed.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

Eo appeal lies from an order of the General Term affirming an order of the Special Term vacating an order of arrest where, upon any view of the facts, such decision can be upheld. An order of arrest is a provisional remedy which the court may grant or refuse in a proper case within its discretion. The exercise of such discretion is not the subject of review in this court. (Liddell v. Paton, 67 N. Y. 393 ; Allen v. Meyer, 73 id. 1; Whitaker v. Imp. S. M. Co., 78 id. 621.) The order appealed from states no ground for the decision, and the opinion of the court cannot be resorted to for the purpose of determining the reasons upon which it is based. Unless the contrary appears, it must necessarily be assumed that the order in question was made in the exercise of the discretion of the court which granted it. (Hewlett v. Wood, 67 N. Y. 394; Snebley v. Conner, 78 id. 218.)

For the reasons stated the appeal must be dismissed.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 N.Y. 580, 1880 N.Y. LEXIS 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarke-v-lourie-ny-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack