Lawrence v. Pease

New York Supreme Court

Lawrence v. Pease

21 N.Y.S. 223, 50 N.Y. St. Rep. 851

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 12, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 21 N.Y.S. 223 (Lawrence v. Pease) 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

Lawrence v. Pease, 21 N.Y.S. 223, 50 N.Y. St. Rep. 851 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

PRATT, J.

The order of May 28th, requiring payment to the judgment creditor, was justified by the papers before the. court. Nothing in the testimony tended to show that the title to the fund was in the •trustee, or that it was not properly subject to the proceeding. The •order as made was therefore proper. The application upon further papers to vacate the order of May 28th was addressed to the favor of 'the court, and was properly denied. The judgment debtor had enjoyed his day in court, and, under the circumstances of the order being exe•cuted, a rehearing would not have been in the interest of justice. It must not be'inferred’ that we think a rehearing would have changed the •result. On the contrary, we are of opinion that upon the fresh papers the same decision would have been made. Order affirmed, with $10 -costs and disbursements. 1 .

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

PRATT, J.

The order of May 28th, requiring payment to the judgment creditor, was justified by the papers before the. court. Nothing in the testimony tended to show that the title to the fund was in the •trustee, or that it was not properly subject to the proceeding. The •order as made was therefore proper. The application upon further papers to vacate the order of May 28th was addressed to the favor of 'the court, and was properly denied. The judgment debtor had enjoyed his day in court, and, under the circumstances of the order being exe•cuted, a rehearing would not have been in the interest of justice. It must not be'inferred’ that we think a rehearing would have changed the •result. On the contrary, we are of opinion that upon the fresh papers the same decision would have been made. Order affirmed, with $10 -costs and disbursements. 1 .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 N.Y.S. 223, 50 N.Y. St. Rep. 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-pease-nysupct-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack