Loog v. Mace

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Loog v. Mace

119 N.Y.S. 182

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided November 12, 1909·Published

Opinion

LEHMAN, J.

The defendant having brought himself within the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the General Rules of Practice, which justify the court in dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute where younger issues have been tried, no excuse having been offered, for the delay, the motion should have been granted. Me[183] Grath v. Murtha & Schmohl Co., 128 App. Div. 278, 112 N. Y. Supp. 679.

The order should therefore be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs in the court below. All concur.

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

LEHMAN, J.

The defendant having brought himself within the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the General Rules of Practice, which justify the court in dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute where younger issues have been tried, no excuse having been offered, for the delay, the motion should have been granted. Me[183] Grath v. Murtha & Schmohl Co., 128 App. Div. 278, 112 N. Y. Supp. 679.

The order should therefore be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs in the court below. All concur.

Loog v. Mace, 119 N.Y.S. 182 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

119 N.Y.S. 182 (Loog v. Mace) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related