Morse v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co.

250 A.D. 863, 294 N.Y.S. 941, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9458
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 16, 1937·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order dated March 23, 1937, denying defendant’s motion to require a return of securities deposited under an undertaking made pursuant to an order staying the issue of execution pending appeal from a judgment, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, without costs. Assuming, without deciding, that the undertaking under which the deposit was made was a statutory form of undertaking and, therefore, had infused in it the effect of the statutes regulating the stay of execution pending an appeal, the defendant was entitled to the return of the bonds deposited as a matter of right, since the security thus given would not be available for the payment of any new judgment obtained as a consequence of the plaintiff’s avaiEng himself of the opportunity for a new trial accorded to him on the reversal of the judgment by the Appellate Division. (Jackson v. Lawyers’ Surety Co., 95 App. Div. 368; affd., 184 N. Y. 521, on opinion below; Tripi v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 237 App. Div. 866.) Appeal from order dated March 1, 1937, dismissed. The decision in respect of the order of March 23, 1937, renders the appeal from this order academic. Hagarty, Carswell, Davis, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Morse v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., 250 A.D. 863, 294 N.Y.S. 941, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

250 A.D. 863 (Morse v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

LaRocco v. Federal Insurance
42 A.D.2d 475 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1973)
La Rocco v. Penn Central Transportation Co.
278 N.E.2d 914 (New York Court of Appeals, 1972)