Consolidated Railway Lighting & Refrigerating Co. v. Rice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Consolidated Railway Lighting & Refrigerating Co. v. Rice

77 N.Y.S. 227, 73 A.D. 622

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 20, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 77 N.Y.S. 227 (Consolidated Railway Lighting & Refrigerating Co. v. Rice) 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

Consolidated Railway Lighting & Refrigerating Co. v. Rice, 77 N.Y.S. 227, 73 A.D. 622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order denying the application of the peti_ tioner to be made a party plaintiff in this action having been affirmed at the present term of this court, it necessarily follows that the order staying proceedings of the plaintiff in the action should be reversed. The stay was granted only until the hearing and determination of the appeal taken from the order on the main application, and, although the stay may be said to fall with the affirmance of the order denying the principal motion, yet, as the same may be construed as restraining the parties to the action from proceeding therein, the proper disposition to be made of it is to reverse the order, with costs of this appeal.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order denying the application of the peti_ tioner to be made a party plaintiff in this action having been affirmed at the present term of this court, it necessarily follows that the order staying proceedings of the plaintiff in the action should be reversed. The stay was granted only until the hearing and determination of the appeal taken from the order on the main application, and, although the stay may be said to fall with the affirmance of the order denying the principal motion, yet, as the same may be construed as restraining the parties to the action from proceeding therein, the proper disposition to be made of it is to reverse the order, with costs of this appeal.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 N.Y.S. 227, 73 A.D. 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/consolidated-railway-lighting-refrigerating-co-v-rice-nyappdiv-1902.