Darby v. Metropolitan Street Railway

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Darby v. Metropolitan Street Railway

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

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 79 N.Y.S. 1053 (Darby v. Metropolitan Street Railway) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 N.Y.S. 1053, 78 A.D. 631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darby-v-metropolitan-street-railway-nyappdiv-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack