Darby v. Metropolitan Street Railway

79 N.Y.S. 1053, 78 A.D. 631

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order should be affirmed. Both parties moved to have the cause placed upon the calendar, the question in difference between them being as to what place thereon it should occupy; the defendant claiming that it should go to the foot of the calendar, and the plaintiff that it should be restored to the place it originally occupied. The court decided in favor of the plaintiff’s contention. This was clearly within its power, as the motion was made. The case differs from that of Hix v. Light Co. (decided herewith) 79 N. Y. Supp. 1016, where the motion was opposed by the defendant, and this court held that no sufficient reason was given excusing the neglect to comply with the special order regulating a new calendar.

The order should therefore be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

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

Darby v. Metropolitan Street Railway, 79 N.Y.S. 1053, 78 A.D. 631 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

79 N.Y.S. 1053 (Darby v. Metropolitan Street Railway) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hix v. Edison Electric Light Co.
79 N.Y.S. 1016 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)