Douglass v. . Haberstro

New York Court of Appeals

Douglass v. . Haberstro

82 N.Y. 572, 1880 N.Y. LEXIS 404

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 16, 1880

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 82 N.Y. 572 (Douglass v. . Haberstro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Douglass v. . Haberstro, 82 N.Y. 572, 1880 N.Y. LEXIS 404 (N.Y. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Danforth, J.

The circumstances disclosed upon this proceeding were enough to call for the action of the Special Term, and the order there made shows upon its face that it was granted, not as a matter of right but of favor, for it was available to the defendant only upon his complying with certain substantial conditions thereby imposed. Its terms- make plausible the appellant’s contention, that if the" conditions were performed and the judgment debtor again placed in custody, the end of the law, which, at the beginning of the action, permitted his arrest, would have been answered; but the order was subject to review by the General Term of the Supreme Court (Code of Civil Pro., § 1347, sub. 1; The Col. Ins. Co. v. Force, 8 How. Pr. 353), and that court came to the conclusion that the case was not sufficient to warrant the relief granted by the Special Term. By their decision the defendant and this court are bound, for the facts stated in the appeal papers do in one view support it, and as the relief sought is within the discretionary power of the Supreme Court to grant or deny, its exercise cannot be reviewed by us. (Code of Civil Pro., § 190, sub. 2; Liddell v. Paton, 67 N. Y. 393; Wallace v. Castle, 68 id. 370; Brady v. Brundage, 59 id. 313; Mills v. Hildreth, 81 id. 91, decided June 1, 1880.) These cases are an answer to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, and require that the appeal should be dismissed.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Danforth, J.

The circumstances disclosed upon this proceeding were enough to call for the action of the Special Term, and the order there made shows upon its face that it was granted, not as a matter of right but of favor, for it was available to the defendant only upon his complying with certain substantial conditions thereby imposed. Its terms- make plausible the appellant’s contention, that if the" conditions were performed and the judgment debtor again placed in custody, the end of the law, which, at the beginning of the action, permitted his arrest, would have been answered; but the order was subject to review by the General Term of the Supreme Court (Code of Civil Pro., § 1347, sub. 1; The Col. Ins. Co. v. Force, 8 How. Pr. 353), and that court came to the conclusion that the case was not sufficient to warrant the relief granted by the Special Term. By their decision the defendant and this court are bound, for the facts stated in the appeal papers do in one view support it, and as the relief sought is within the discretionary power of the Supreme Court to grant or deny, its exercise cannot be reviewed by us. (Code of Civil Pro., § 190, sub. 2; Liddell v. Paton, 67 N. Y. 393; Wallace v. Castle, 68 id. 370; Brady v. Brundage, 59 id. 313; Mills v. Hildreth, 81 id. 91, decided June 1, 1880.) These cases are an answer to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, and require that the appeal should be dismissed.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 N.Y. 572, 1880 N.Y. LEXIS 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglass-v-haberstro-ny-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack