Schneider v. Randolph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schneider v. Randolph

229 A.D. 724

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 229 A.D. 724 (Schneider v. Randolph) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schneider v. Randolph, 229 A.D. 724 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for reargument of motion denied. Motion for reargument of appeal granted. Present — Lazansky, P. J., [725]*725Rich, Kapper, Hagarty and Scudder, JJ. Upon reargument of appeal the decision handed down on March 14, 1930, is amended to read as follows: Judgment entered upon the report of official referee reversed upon the law, without costs, without prejudice to the petitioner, respondent, to apply to the Special Term for confirmation of the report of the official referee. It seems that, in a proceeding of this kind, the court must determine the controversy and a reference is merely for the purpose of assisting the court, the referee having no power to hear and determine. (See Matter of Cartier v. Spooner, 118 App. Div. 342; Sullivan v. McCann, 124 id. 126.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Motion for reargument of motion denied. Motion for reargument of appeal granted. Present — Lazansky, P. J., [725]*725Rich, Kapper, Hagarty and Scudder, JJ. Upon reargument of appeal the decision handed down on March 14, 1930, is amended to read as follows: Judgment entered upon the report of official referee reversed upon the law, without costs, without prejudice to the petitioner, respondent, to apply to the Special Term for confirmation of the report of the official referee. It seems that, in a proceeding of this kind, the court must determine the controversy and a reference is merely for the purpose of assisting the court, the referee having no power to hear and determine. (See Matter of Cartier v. Spooner, 118 App. Div. 342; Sullivan v. McCann, 124 id. 126.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D. 724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schneider-v-randolph-nyappdiv-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack