Weeks v. Silver Islet Consolidated Mining & Lands Co.

The Superior Court of New York City

Weeks v. Silver Islet Consolidated Mining & Lands Co.

26 Jones & S. 247, 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 417, 19 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R. 87

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedJune 27, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 26 Jones & S. 247 (Weeks v. Silver Islet Consolidated Mining & Lands Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Weeks v. Silver Islet Consolidated Mining & Lands Co., 26 Jones & S. 247, 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 417, 19 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R. 87 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.—Truax, J.

The motion for an extra allowance was denied upon the ground that it did [250]*250not appear that the right which plaintiff sought to enforce was of any value and, that, therefore, there was no fact which could be used as a basis for computation upon which to predicate an extra allowance. The only allegation in the printed papers bearing upon the question of the value of the subject matter involved in the action, is the allegation that the action was brought to procure a judgment allowing the plaintiff to redeem from forfeiture certain stock of the defendants upon payment of the sums due thereon for unpaid assessments, and that the amount so due was at the time of the trial $15,267.

We are of the opinion that this is not evidence that the stock was worth the sum of $15,267. It may well be that the stock had been assessed for more than its value. We have not the pleadings before us, and we cannot say what the allegations in the pleadings were, nor can we say whether the plaintiff was estopped from denying that the stock was of the value above specified.

Order affirmed with costs.

Freedman, J., I concur in result.

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

By the Court.—Truax, J.

The motion for an extra allowance was denied upon the ground that it did [250]*250not appear that the right which plaintiff sought to enforce was of any value and, that, therefore, there was no fact which could be used as a basis for computation upon which to predicate an extra allowance. The only allegation in the printed papers bearing upon the question of the value of the subject matter involved in the action, is the allegation that the action was brought to procure a judgment allowing the plaintiff to redeem from forfeiture certain stock of the defendants upon payment of the sums due thereon for unpaid assessments, and that the amount so due was at the time of the trial $15,267.

We are of the opinion that this is not evidence that the stock was worth the sum of $15,267. It may well be that the stock had been assessed for more than its value. We have not the pleadings before us, and we cannot say what the allegations in the pleadings were, nor can we say whether the plaintiff was estopped from denying that the stock was of the value above specified.

Order affirmed with costs.

Freedman, J., I concur in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Jones & S. 247, 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 417, 19 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R. 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weeks-v-silver-islet-consolidated-mining-lands-co-nysuperctnyc-1890.