Molloy v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Molloy v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

127 A.D. 205, 110 N.Y.S. 978, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1931

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 5, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D. 205 (Molloy v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Molloy v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 127 A.D. 205, 110 N.Y.S. 978, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1931 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor, J. :

This is a strange case. On meeting with difficulties in making his proofs on the trial, and being himself-of the opinion that he had not made out a case, the plaintiff’s attorney was allowed on his own [206]*206motion to withdraw a juror. The court imposed the condition that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s taxable costs and disbursements within 10 days, in default of which the complaint should be dismissed. The conditions xyere not complied with and a judgment of dismissal was entered. The plaintiff appeals from that judgment and discusses several alleged errors of the trial Judge in the exclusion of evidence. The case and exceptions, consist of 11 pages, the brief for the appellant consists of 15 pages, and that for the defendant of 32 pages — an abuse with which we are growing painfully familiar. Uothing is said of the fact that the court did not dismiss the case, hut allowed the plaintiff to withdraw a juror, and that the dismissal is based solely on his default to comply with the conditions imposed. . i

The judgment should he affirmed.

Present—Woodward, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, Jj.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with ’costs.

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

Gaynor, J. :

This is a strange case. On meeting with difficulties in making his proofs on the trial, and being himself-of the opinion that he had not made out a case, the plaintiff’s attorney was allowed on his own [206]*206motion to withdraw a juror. The court imposed the condition that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s taxable costs and disbursements within 10 days, in default of which the complaint should be dismissed. The conditions xyere not complied with and a judgment of dismissal was entered. The plaintiff appeals from that judgment and discusses several alleged errors of the trial Judge in the exclusion of evidence. The case and exceptions, consist of 11 pages, the brief for the appellant consists of 15 pages, and that for the defendant of 32 pages — an abuse with which we are growing painfully familiar. Uothing is said of the fact that the court did not dismiss the case, hut allowed the plaintiff to withdraw a juror, and that the dismissal is based solely on his default to comply with the conditions imposed. . i

The judgment should he affirmed.

Present—Woodward, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, Jj.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with ’costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D. 205, 110 N.Y.S. 978, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/molloy-v-metropolitan-street-railway-co-nyappdiv-1908.