Hatfield v. Secor

1 Hilt. 535
CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas
DecidedApril 15, 1858
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 1 Hilt. 535 (Hatfield v. Secor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Hilt. 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatfield-v-secor-nyctcompl-1858.