Hatfield v. Secor

1 Hilt. 535
New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided April 15, 1858·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Brady, J.

— Amendments are in all cases matter of favor, and not of strict right (Graham’s Pr. 669. 2d ed.), and being addressed to the discretion of the court, no appeal can be taken from the order made on applications therefor (St. John v. West, 4 How. Prac. Rep. 331 ; Seeley v. Chittenden, 10 Barb. 303 ; Tallman v. Hinman, 10 How. 90 ; Tracy v. New York Steam Faucet Co., 1 E. D. Smith R. 357, citing and approving St. John v. West, supra), unless the certificate of the presiding judge at special term is procured, as provided by rule of this court of March 22d, 1851; which ivas not done in this caso.

Appeal from the qrder of the special term dismissed, with costs.

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

Hatfield v. Secor, 1 Hilt. 535 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1858).

1 Hilt. 535 (Hatfield v. Secor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McLean v. St. Paul & Chicago Ry. Co.
18 Abb. N. Cas. 423 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1886)
Guiterman v. Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia Mail Steamship Co.
9 Daly 119 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1879)
John v. Eytinge
5 Rob. 90 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1867)