Radway v. Graham

4 Abb. Pr. 468
CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas
DecidedJanuary 15, 1857
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 4 Abb. Pr. 468 (Radway v. Graham) 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
Radway v. Graham, 4 Abb. Pr. 468 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1857).

Opinion

By the Court.—Brady, J.

—The order appealed from, made at special term, on the 23d of September last, was granted upon the payment of the costs therein mentioned. The appellant, within the period of fourteen days thereafter, received from the defendant the costs so directed to be paid, and the answer which by the order the respondent was permitted to interpose. It does not appear from the papers submitted whether the appeal was taken before or after the costs were paid. I think, however, that it is not very material, in reference to the principle on which this appeal be decided. The receipt of the costs must be regarded as a waiver of the appeal, if received after the appeal taken, and of the right to appeal, if they were received before the appeal was taken. If a party to the action proceed upon an order made in the cause, or accept any benefit or advantage under it, he will be precluded from asking its review. Moreover, it is not usual to order restitution on appeals from orders made at special term; and if the order appealed from were reversed, such a direction would seem to be called for.

The order must be affirmed.

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

Related

In re Friedman
123 Misc. 809 (New York Supreme Court, 1924)
County of San Bernardino v. County of Riverside
67 P. 1047 (California Supreme Court, 1902)
Hess v. Smith
73 N.Y. St. Rep. 85 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Hess v. Smith
16 Misc. 55 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
William Wolff & Co. v. Canadian Pacific Railway
26 P. 825 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Lawrence v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.
12 N.Y.S. 546 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1891)
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Bankers & Merchants' Telegraph Co.
16 N.E. 539 (New York Court of Appeals, 1888)
Grunberg v. Blumenlahl
66 How. Pr. 62 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1883)
Porter v. Parmly
6 Jones & S. 490 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1875)
Taussig v. Hart
1 Jones & S. 157 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1871)
Lamprey v. Henk
16 Minn. 405 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1871)
Benkard v. Babcock
2 Rob. 175 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1864)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Abb. Pr. 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/radway-v-graham-nyctcompl-1857.