Donahue v. Lyons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Donahue v. Lyons

51 N.Y.S. 612, 30 A.D. 622

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

DecidedMay 7, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 51 N.Y.S. 612 (Donahue v. Lyons) 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

Donahue v. Lyons, 51 N.Y.S. 612, 30 A.D. 622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We are of opinion that the course of practice adopted by the plaintiffs in this proceeding was irregular. It is not necessary for us to point out the various irregularities which we have in mind. It is sufficient to say that the order punishing the defendant for contempt, and finding that his misconduct in violating the injunction order impaired and prejudiced the rights of the plaintiffs to their actual loss, in the sum of $250, is without evidence to sustain it. It is true that the court, under section 2284 of the Code of Civil [613]*613Procedure, might have imposed a fine not exceeding $250 upon the defendant, whether the plaintiffs had been injured by his misconduct or not. But this it did not assume to do. The fine was imposed simply as indemnity for the plaintiffs’ loss, and of this, as we have already said, there is no evidence.

The order appealed from should be reversed, and the defendant discharged.

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

PER CURIAM.

We are of opinion that the course of practice adopted by the plaintiffs in this proceeding was irregular. It is not necessary for us to point out the various irregularities which we have in mind. It is sufficient to say that the order punishing the defendant for contempt, and finding that his misconduct in violating the injunction order impaired and prejudiced the rights of the plaintiffs to their actual loss, in the sum of $250, is without evidence to sustain it. It is true that the court, under section 2284 of the Code of Civil [613]*613Procedure, might have imposed a fine not exceeding $250 upon the defendant, whether the plaintiffs had been injured by his misconduct or not. But this it did not assume to do. The fine was imposed simply as indemnity for the plaintiffs’ loss, and of this, as we have already said, there is no evidence.

The order appealed from should be reversed, and the defendant discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 N.Y.S. 612, 30 A.D. 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donahue-v-lyons-nyappdiv-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack