Wamsley v. H. L. Horton & Co.

23 N.Y.S. 85, 68 Hun 549, 75 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 549, 52 N.Y. St. Rep. 767
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedApril 14, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 23 N.Y.S. 85 (Wamsley v. H. L. Horton & Co.) 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
Wamsley v. H. L. Horton & Co., 23 N.Y.S. 85, 68 Hun 549, 75 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 549, 52 N.Y. St. Rep. 767 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We concur with the counsel for the appellant that references under section 10151 of the Code, in respect to disputed questions of fact arising upon motions, should only be ordered' in extraordinary cases. In fact, it should only be resorted to when such a reference is absolutely necessary to determine questions of" fact which are of vital importance, arising upon motions before the court. A reference upon a motion is frequently a great abuse of the discretion vested in the court by this section, as it requires-large expenditures of money in the shape of referee’s and stenographers’ fees, and to procure the attendance of counsel, which are utterly disproportionate to the importance of the questions involved either in the action or .upon the motion.. We think,, therefore, that in the case at bar, upon the facts presented, the court should not have ordered the reference from which an .appeal is taken; but we are of opinion, in view of the conclusions* arrived at by the court as evidenced by its opinion, and which were justified by the papers before it, that it should have disposed of the motion by denying the same.- We think, therefore, that the order of [87]*87reference should be reversed, and the motion sent back to the special term, in order that it may be disposed of upon the papers which were then before the court, with $10 costs and disbursements of appeal, to abide the final disposition of the motion.

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

Related

General Electric Co. v. Golden Rule Appliance Co.
3 A.D.2d 436 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1957)
Municipal Mortgage Co. v. Four Hundred Sixty-One Eighth Avenue Co.
195 A.D. 370 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1921)
Eddy v. Spaulding
90 N.Y.S. 1094 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904)
Fridenberg v. Lee Construction Co.
27 Misc. 651 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1899)
Persons v. Buffalo City Mills, Ltd.
29 A.D. 45 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Persons v. Buffalo City Mills
51 N.Y.S. 645 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Wamsley v. H. L. Horton & Co.
24 N.Y.S. 1142 (New York Supreme Court, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 N.Y.S. 85, 68 Hun 549, 75 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 549, 52 N.Y. St. Rep. 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wamsley-v-h-l-horton-co-nysupct-1893.