Stanfield v. Stanfield

21 Misc. 409, 47 N.Y.S. 1010
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1897·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Gildersleeve, J.

The defendant moves to strike the cause from the calendar on the ground that “ this is a joint action and must be brought to trial jointly as against all of the defendants herein, and that all of said defendants are not within the jurisdiction of this court, and said action cannot'proceed to trial until all of the defendants herein are brought within the jurisdiction of this court.” The motion must be denied for three reasons: First, because the "question here raised had better be passed upon when the case comes on for trial, rather than on a motion to strike the cause from the calendar as being irregularly thereon; second, because the cause is-regularly on the calendar, inasmuch as proper notices of trial have been served and a proper note of issue filed; third, because this cause has appeared three times on the calendar before the present term, and defendant is guilty of laches in waiting until its fourth appearance before making his motion. Motion to strike cause from the calendar denied.

Motion denied.

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

Stanfield v. Stanfield, 21 Misc. 409, 47 N.Y.S. 1010 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1897).

21 Misc. 409 (Stanfield v. Stanfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mangone v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
48 N.Y.S. 644 (New York Supreme Court, 1897)