Clute v. Mahon

Superior Court of New York

Clute v. Mahon

9 N.Y.S. 713, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 340

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedMay 5, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 9 N.Y.S. 713 (Clute v. Mahon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clute v. Mahon, 9 N.Y.S. 713, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 340 (superctny 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It does not appear that the judge, in denying plaintiff’s motion below, did not exercise properly the discretion he was bound to use upon such a motion. The plaintiff, who was an attorney, left the court-room a short time before the case was called, “leaving some one in attendance at ■court to answer should the case be called during his [deponent’s] absence.” The plaintiff was absent from court about 15 minutes, and “upon his return he learned that his case was dismissed on motion of defendants’ attorney. ” This does not show any excuse. It is vague. It does not assert even that the plaintiff was ready and intended to go to trial. It does not give the name of plaintiff’s representative in his absence, and show what that representative did, or the immediate circumstances of the dismissal of the complaint. The order should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

Per Curiam.

It does not appear that the judge, in denying plaintiff’s motion below, did not exercise properly the discretion he was bound to use upon such a motion. The plaintiff, who was an attorney, left the court-room a short time before the case was called, “leaving some one in attendance at ■court to answer should the case be called during his [deponent’s] absence.” The plaintiff was absent from court about 15 minutes, and “upon his return he learned that his case was dismissed on motion of defendants’ attorney. ” This does not show any excuse. It is vague. It does not assert even that the plaintiff was ready and intended to go to trial. It does not give the name of plaintiff’s representative in his absence, and show what that representative did, or the immediate circumstances of the dismissal of the complaint. The order should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 N.Y.S. 713, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clute-v-mahon-superctny-1890.