Newcomb v. Burbank

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Newcomb v. Burbank

159 F. 569, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5025

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedMarch 24, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 159 F. 569 (Newcomb v. Burbank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Newcomb v. Burbank, 159 F. 569, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5025 (circtsdny 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

WARD, Circuit Judge.

This is a motion to vacate an order of the trial judge dismissing the complaint and setting aside the judgment-entered thereon.

Although the judgment is a final one, to which a writ of error lies, the plaintiffs can get no relief thereby, because the Circuit Court of Appeals, unlike the Appellate Division of the .Supreme Court of'New York, has no power to review matters of discretion. The application involves, not merely the opening of a default, but the setting aside of an order deliberately' made by another judge of this court, with a knowledge of all the facts, and resulting in a final judgment. It is certainly not in the course of orderly procedure for me to do this, even if I have the power.

The plaintiffs’ remedy will be to apply to the judge who made the order, or to revive the action brought by their testatrix in the Supreme Court of the state of New York, or to bring a new action.

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

WARD, Circuit Judge.

This is a motion to vacate an order of the trial judge dismissing the complaint and setting aside the judgment-entered thereon.

Although the judgment is a final one, to which a writ of error lies, the plaintiffs can get no relief thereby, because the Circuit Court of Appeals, unlike the Appellate Division of the .Supreme Court of'New York, has no power to review matters of discretion. The application involves, not merely the opening of a default, but the setting aside of an order deliberately' made by another judge of this court, with a knowledge of all the facts, and resulting in a final judgment. It is certainly not in the course of orderly procedure for me to do this, even if I have the power.

The plaintiffs’ remedy will be to apply to the judge who made the order, or to revive the action brought by their testatrix in the Supreme Court of the state of New York, or to bring a new action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 F. 569, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newcomb-v-burbank-circtsdny-1908.