King v. Barnes

22 N.Y. St. Rep. 51

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in King v. Barnes. Read the opinion of the Court — 4 N.Y.S. 247 →

New York Supreme Court·Decided February 11, 1889·Published

Opinion

Dykman, J.

—A motion was made at the general term in-December,, in Brooklyn, to appeal order of October 13, 1888, for the appointment of a receiver.

The terminal company has passed into the hands and under the control of new officers, who do not desire further litigation on that subject.

We have affirmed the order of October 13, 1888, at the present term of the court, and it is unnecessary for us now to dismiss the appeal.

We will, therefore, deny this motion to dismiss, without, costs.

Pratt, J., concurs; Barnard, P. J., not sitting.

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

Dykman, J.

—A motion was made at the general term in-December,, in Brooklyn, to appeal order of October 13, 1888, for the appointment of a receiver.

The terminal company has passed into the hands and under the control of new officers, who do not desire further litigation on that subject.

We have affirmed the order of October 13, 1888, at the present term of the court, and it is unnecessary for us now to dismiss the appeal.

We will, therefore, deny this motion to dismiss, without, costs.

Pratt, J., concurs; Barnard, P. J., not sitting.

King v. Barnes, 22 N.Y. St. Rep. 51 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

22 N.Y. St. Rep. 51 (King v. Barnes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.