Mittenthal v. Rabinowitz
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, Max Mittenthal, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 16th day of March, 1901, denying the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the Special Term calendar for trial after it had been marked “ reserved generally.”
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam :
We think the motion should have been granted. The cause had been regularly placed upon the Special Term calendar for trial, and the fact that thereafter it was marked “ reserved generally ” did not prevent the plaintiff from having it restored to the day calendar for *139•trial, and the court could not, upon a motion for that purpose, refuse to restore it on the ground that it ought not originally to have been placed upon the Special Term, calendar.
Although the judgment demanded being for an accounting, yet as the facts alleged in the complaint do not establish that the plaintiff is…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Glenn v. . LancasterNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
3Cited by5 opinions
- Everett v. De FontaineAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
- Everett v. De FontaineAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
- Court Press, Inc. v. JacksonAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1924
- Karst v. Prang Educational Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
- Loeb v. . Supreme Lodge, Royal ArcanumNew York Court of Appeals · 1910