Oregon & Transcontinental Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co.

32 F. 428, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2775
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided August 20, 1887·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Lacombe, J.

The practice in this court touching applications, under the fifty-seventh rule, for leave to file supplemental bills, has always been liberal to the applicant. Rightly so, because the granting of such leave rests so largely in discretion that an unfavorable decision would practically debar the applicant from vindicating the sufficiency of his pleading, or the equity of his cause of action before the appellate court. This court will not, therefore, on such an application, proceed to try the cause, and to determine questions which may more appropriately be raised by demurrer. While in the case at bar, and upon the facts set forth in the supplemental bill, there may be grave doubts as to the complainant’s right to the relief prayed for in such bill, that issue will not lie tried on this motion.

Motion for leave to file supplemental bill granted.

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

Oregon & Transcontinental Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 32 F. 428, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2775 (circtsdny 1887).

32 F. 428 (Oregon & Transcontinental Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cromwell v. Hillsborough Tp.
53 F. Supp. 209 (D. New Jersey, 1944)
International Ry. Co. v. Prender-Gast
29 F.2d 296 (W.D. New York, 1928)
Hartley v. Lapidus & Holub Co.
216 F. 92 (Eighth Circuit, 1914)
Liebing v. Matthews
216 F. 1 (Eighth Circuit, 1914)