Muldenor v. McDonogh

2 Hilt. 46
CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas
DecidedJune 15, 1858
StatusPublished

This text of 2 Hilt. 46 (Muldenor v. McDonogh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Muldenor v. McDonogh, 2 Hilt. 46 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1858).

Opinion

By the Court, Brady, J.

The motion made at the special term was one addressed to the discretion of the court, and from the order made no appeal lies. St. John v. West, 4 How. Pr. Rep. 331; Seeley v. Chittenden, 10 Barb. 303; Tracy v. N. Y. Steam Faucet Co., 1 E. D. Smith, 357; Sherman v. Felt, 2 Coms. 186. The order might have been reviewed under the rule of this court, adopted March, 1851, upon the certificate of the judge by whom the order was made, that the question involved was one of importance and doubt. Mead v. Mead, 2 E. D. Smith, 223. The certificate not having been procured, the appeal must be dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Related

Seeley v. Chittenden
10 Barb. 303 (New York Supreme Court, 1851)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Hilt. 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muldenor-v-mcdonogh-nyctcompl-1858.