Steele v. Pittsburgh, Shenango & Lake Erie Railroad

New York Supreme Court

Steele v. Pittsburgh, Shenango & Lake Erie Railroad

12 N.Y.S. 576, 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 198, 58 Hun 611, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2619

DecidedDecember 31, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 12 N.Y.S. 576 (Steele v. Pittsburgh, Shenango & Lake Erie Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steele v. Pittsburgh, Shenango & Lake Erie Railroad, 12 N.Y.S. 576, 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 198, 58 Hun 611, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2619 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Bartlett, J.

This is a case where the court below fairly exercised its discretion in refusing to continue the preliminary injunction, and we do not find anything in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant which satisfies us that its action was erroneous. To allow the injunction to remain in force would be practically to give the plaintiff all the relief which he could obtain by means of a final judgment; and Mr. Justice Barrett well says that the court should be slow to grant such an injunction in advance of the trial, especially where any possible injury to the plaintiff must be slight, and readily capable of compensation. The equities set out by the complainant in his moving papers appear to be fully controverted, with a possible exception as to one charge, to which the learned counsel for the appellant calls attention in his brief; but we do not regard this one matter as significant enough to call for a reversal of the order made below. Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

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

Bartlett, J.

This is a case where the court below fairly exercised its discretion in refusing to continue the preliminary injunction, and we do not find anything in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant which satisfies us that its action was erroneous. To allow the injunction to remain in force would be practically to give the plaintiff all the relief which he could obtain by means of a final judgment; and Mr. Justice Barrett well says that the court should be slow to grant such an injunction in advance of the trial, especially where any possible injury to the plaintiff must be slight, and readily capable of compensation. The equities set out by the complainant in his moving papers appear to be fully controverted, with a possible exception as to one charge, to which the learned counsel for the appellant calls attention in his brief; but we do not regard this one matter as significant enough to call for a reversal of the order made below. Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 N.Y.S. 576, 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 198, 58 Hun 611, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steele-v-pittsburgh-shenango-lake-erie-railroad-nysupct-1890.