Clearwater v. Decker

New York Supreme Court

Clearwater v. Decker

20 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 63

DecidedJanuary 15, 1878

StatusPublished

This text of 20 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 63 (Clearwater v. Decker) 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

Clearwater v. Decker, 20 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 63 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Ouriam:

The evidence had been agreed upon by stipulation and had been submitted to the judge who was trying the case. A motion was subsequently made before him, which was, in effect, a motion to open the case and take further or other evidence. This motion he denied. All the evidence in the action therefore was before the judge. Nothing remained except the argument of counsel. Under these circumstances we think that the plaintiff should not have been allowed to discontinue. The case was in possession of the court for trial. To permit a discontinuance at that time was to permit the plaintiff to -withdraw the case from one judge who had heard (or might have read) the evidence, and to bring on a new action before some tribunal thought to be more favorable.

¥e are referred by the plaintiff to the case of Cummins v. Bennett (8 Paige, 81). There had been no trial in the case; nor had a trial been commenced before the court.

We think the order should be reversed, with costs.

Present — -Learned, P. J., Bockes and Osborn, JJ\

Order reversed with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

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

Per Ouriam:

The evidence had been agreed upon by stipulation and had been submitted to the judge who was trying the case. A motion was subsequently made before him, which was, in effect, a motion to open the case and take further or other evidence. This motion he denied. All the evidence in the action therefore was before the judge. Nothing remained except the argument of counsel. Under these circumstances we think that the plaintiff should not have been allowed to discontinue. The case was in possession of the court for trial. To permit a discontinuance at that time was to permit the plaintiff to -withdraw the case from one judge who had heard (or might have read) the evidence, and to bring on a new action before some tribunal thought to be more favorable.

¥e are referred by the plaintiff to the case of Cummins v. Bennett (8 Paige, 81). There had been no trial in the case; nor had a trial been commenced before the court.

We think the order should be reversed, with costs.

Present — -Learned, P. J., Bockes and Osborn, JJ\

Order reversed with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clearwater-v-decker-nysupct-1878.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack