Premo v. Smith

The Superior Court of New York City

Premo v. Smith

10 Abb. Pr. 90, 40 How. Pr. 480, 2 Sweeny 467

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedMay 15, 1870

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Abb. Pr. 90 (Premo v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Premo v. Smith, 10 Abb. Pr. 90, 40 How. Pr. 480, 2 Sweeny 467 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1870).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

*—Freedman, J.

This is an appeal from an order staying plaintiff’s proceedings. Upon the hearing of the motion below, the defendant showed by affidavit, and by the records of the court of common pleas for the city and county of New York, that the plaintiff had willfully and fraudulently either destroyed or withheld from the defendant the original specifications of a written building contract, which defined the rights of the parties to the action, and were material for the determination of such rights. The plaintiff read no papers in opposition to the motion, and the court thereupon granted an order staying all proceedings on the part of the plaintiff in the action, until he shall produce and deliver to the attorney for the defendant one of the said original specifications, and giving to the defendant twenty days after such service to answer the complaint or take such other proceedings in the action as he shall be advised.

Upon an examination of the facts it clearly appears that the court below had not only the power to make the order appealed from, but that the order, as made, was a proper one under the circumstances.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Present, Barbour, Ch. J., and Freedman and Spencer, JJ.

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

By the Court.

*—Freedman, J.

This is an appeal from an order staying plaintiff’s proceedings. Upon the hearing of the motion below, the defendant showed by affidavit, and by the records of the court of common pleas for the city and county of New York, that the plaintiff had willfully and fraudulently either destroyed or withheld from the defendant the original specifications of a written building contract, which defined the rights of the parties to the action, and were material for the determination of such rights. The plaintiff read no papers in opposition to the motion, and the court thereupon granted an order staying all proceedings on the part of the plaintiff in the action, until he shall produce and deliver to the attorney for the defendant one of the said original specifications, and giving to the defendant twenty days after such service to answer the complaint or take such other proceedings in the action as he shall be advised.

Upon an examination of the facts it clearly appears that the court below had not only the power to make the order appealed from, but that the order, as made, was a proper one under the circumstances.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Present, Barbour, Ch. J., and Freedman and Spencer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Abb. Pr. 90, 40 How. Pr. 480, 2 Sweeny 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/premo-v-smith-nysuperctnyc-1870.