In re Harmony Insurance

New York Supreme Court

In re Harmony Insurance

9 Abb. Pr. 347

DecidedJuly 1, 1869

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Abb. Pr. 347 (In re Harmony Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Harmony Insurance, 9 Abb. Pr. 347 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

*— George G. Barnard, J.

The provision of the statute relied upon by the respondents, prescribes a bar which precludes creditors from proving their claims after the lapse of the specified time. The petitioner in this case did not apply within the time prescribed, and was therefore technically guilty of negligence. The petition was an application to the court to relieve him from the effect of that negligence and allow him to prove his claim' after the time had passed. This was an application to the discretion of the court to relieve the petitioner from the strict bar of the statute, and the court refused to grant the application.

The order is one which rested in the discretion of the court, and is therefore not appealable.

Present, G. G. Barnard and Cardozo, JJ. In this ease, Ingraham, J., having made the order appealed from, did not sit.

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

By the Court.

*— George G. Barnard, J.

The provision of the statute relied upon by the respondents, prescribes a bar which precludes creditors from proving their claims after the lapse of the specified time. The petitioner in this case did not apply within the time prescribed, and was therefore technically guilty of negligence. The petition was an application to the court to relieve him from the effect of that negligence and allow him to prove his claim' after the time had passed. This was an application to the discretion of the court to relieve the petitioner from the strict bar of the statute, and the court refused to grant the application.

The order is one which rested in the discretion of the court, and is therefore not appealable.

Present, G. G. Barnard and Cardozo, JJ. In this ease, Ingraham, J., having made the order appealed from, did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Abb. Pr. 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-harmony-insurance-nysupct-1869.