Kiersted v. Orange & Alexandria Railroad

44 How. Pr. 379
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1873
StatusPublished

This text of 44 How. Pr. 379 (Kiersted v. Orange & Alexandria Railroad) 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
Kiersted v. Orange & Alexandria Railroad, 44 How. Pr. 379 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1873).

Opinion

Ingraham, Ch. J.,

J., held that the order was in the discretion of Justice Leonard. That the appellants obtained the time in which to make their case, and the judge had the right to impose the condition of an undertaking on appeal even if the appellants did not ask for a stay of execution. That though the time, in which to make a case had not expired, the court, could grant the extension on terms, but where the time had expired the appellants were asking to be relieved of a default and for a favor, and the order granting the favor on. conditions, being a discretionary one, could not be appealed from.

That the parties appellants' consisted of five foreign railroad corporations, without property in this state, as appeared before J udge Leonard, and on asking for the tavor of continuing litigation in the courts of this state, it could not be said that any abuse of discretion was exercised by requiring of them that they give security on appeal. That the order was not an appealable one, and must be affirmed with costs.

Order affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 How. Pr. 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kiersted-v-orange-alexandria-railroad-nysupct-1873.