M'Mahon v. Allen

New York Supreme Court

M'Mahon v. Allen

10 How. Pr. 384

DecidedJanuary 15, 1854

StatusPublished

This text of 10 How. Pr. 384 (M'Mahon v. Allen) 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

M'Mahon v. Allen, 10 How. Pr. 384 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1854).

Pincite

Opinion

Roosevelt, Justice.

This is, in effect, a chancery suit. The leading object of the complaint is to set aside a conveyance on the alleged ground of fraud. The plaintiff, however, asks that the case may be tried by a jury, and that issues for that purpose may be framed pursuant to the 254th section of the Code; which provides that, although such cases are triable by the court, yet the court may order them, or any specific question involved in them, to be tried by a jury, or by referees.

Considering the great accumulation of business on the circuit calendar, and the great delays consequent thereon, I do not deem it a discreet exercise of the power confided by the Code to aggravate the existing evil. 1 shall therefore direct that the whole issue be referred to Aaron Vanderpoel, as referee, with liberty, -nevertheless, to the parties, by mutual consent, to insert any other name they may deem proper.

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

Roosevelt, Justice.

This is, in effect, a chancery suit. The leading object of the complaint is to set aside a conveyance on the alleged ground of fraud. The plaintiff, however, asks that the case may be tried by a jury, and that issues for that purpose may be framed pursuant to the 254th section of the Code; which provides that, although such cases are triable by the court, yet the court may order them, or any specific question involved in them, to be tried by a jury, or by referees.

Considering the great accumulation of business on the circuit calendar, and the great delays consequent thereon, I do not deem it a discreet exercise of the power confided by the Code to aggravate the existing evil. 1 shall therefore direct that the whole issue be referred to Aaron Vanderpoel, as referee, with liberty, -nevertheless, to the parties, by mutual consent, to insert any other name they may deem proper.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 How. Pr. 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mmahon-v-allen-nysupct-1854.