Henry v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Henry v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

115 A.D. 352, 100 N.Y.S. 811, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3691

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

DecidedNovember 5, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D. 352 (Henry v. Interurban Street Railway Co.) 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

Henry v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 115 A.D. 352, 100 N.Y.S. 811, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal by the defendant from an order of Special Term denying the defendant’s motion to remit the case on appeal for resettlement to the justice who presided at the trial of the case, and denying a motion for the resettlement.

The defendant, if not satisfied with the settlement of the case had a right to move, on additional affidavits, for a resettlement. Such a motion requiring to be made upon notice was properly returnable at' Part I, Special Term. As the settlement of a case on appeal is to be made by the ju.stice presiding at the trial, if he was not sitting at Special Term, Part I, when the motion was returnable,' it was the duty of the justice so presiding to refer said motion to said trial justice for decision. The refusal in the case at bar to so remit the motion and to undertake to determine it at Special Term was error.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with ten ■ dollars costs and disbursements, and the original motion directed to be . remitted for decision to the justice who presided at the trial of the action.

Present—O’Brien, P. J., Ingraham, Clarke, Houghton and Scott, JJ.

Order reversed, with ten .dollars costs and disbursements, and motion remitted for decision to the justice who presided at trial of action. ■ x

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

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal by the defendant from an order of Special Term denying the defendant’s motion to remit the case on appeal for resettlement to the justice who presided at the trial of the case, and denying a motion for the resettlement.

The defendant, if not satisfied with the settlement of the case had a right to move, on additional affidavits, for a resettlement. Such a motion requiring to be made upon notice was properly returnable at' Part I, Special Term. As the settlement of a case on appeal is to be made by the ju.stice presiding at the trial, if he was not sitting at Special Term, Part I, when the motion was returnable,' it was the duty of the justice so presiding to refer said motion to said trial justice for decision. The refusal in the case at bar to so remit the motion and to undertake to determine it at Special Term was error.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with ten ■ dollars costs and disbursements, and the original motion directed to be . remitted for decision to the justice who presided at the trial of the action.

Present—O’Brien, P. J., Ingraham, Clarke, Houghton and Scott, JJ.

Order reversed, with ten .dollars costs and disbursements, and motion remitted for decision to the justice who presided at trial of action. ■ x

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D. 352, 100 N.Y.S. 811, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappdiv-1906.