Smith v. Onondaga Pottery Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Onondaga Pottery Co.

255 A.D. 931, 8 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5883

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D. 931 (Smith v. Onondaga Pottery Co.) 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

Smith v. Onondaga Pottery Co., 255 A.D. 931, 8 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Order so far as appealed from affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, on the authority of Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co. (270 N. Y. 287); Felli v. U. S. Gypsum Co. (Id. 287); Michalek v. U. S. Gypsum Co. (76 F. [2d] 115); Miller v. U. S. Gypsum Co. (96 id. 69). The appeal from the order first granted does not oust the court of jurisdiction to grant a reargument of the motion on which the order appealed from had been granted. (Belmont v. Erie R. Co., 52 Barb. 637.) All concur. (The portion of the order appealed from grants a reargument of a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint in a silicosis action.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, JJ. [See 164 Misc. 883.]

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

Order so far as appealed from affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, on the authority of Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co. (270 N. Y. 287); Felli v. U. S. Gypsum Co. (Id. 287); Michalek v. U. S. Gypsum Co. (76 F. [2d] 115); Miller v. U. S. Gypsum Co. (96 id. 69). The appeal from the order first granted does not oust the court of jurisdiction to grant a reargument of the motion on which the order appealed from had been granted. (Belmont v. Erie R. Co., 52 Barb. 637.) All concur. (The portion of the order appealed from grants a reargument of a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint in a silicosis action.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, JJ. [See 164 Misc. 883.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 931, 8 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-onondaga-pottery-co-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack