Hudson River Telephone Co. v. Watervliet Turnpike & R. R.
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment and order of the supreme court, third department, continuing injunction pendente lite granted by Albany special term, restraining defendant from operating its railroad in the city of Albany by what is known as the single trolley system of electricity.
1Opinion of the CourtAndrews, J.
We cannot entertain the appeal without disregarding a long line of decisions in this court, holding that the granting of an injunction pendente lite rests in the sound discretion of the court of original jurisdiction, and that this discretion is reviewable only by the general term. There is an exception to this rule “ where,” as we said in Williams v. Telegraph Co., 93 N. Y., 640, “itplainly appears on the face of the compláint that the case is one in which, by settled adjudications, the plaintiff, upon the facts stated, is not entitled to final relief,” and the appeal to this court is from…
2Cited by12 opinions
- James v. Board of EducationNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Beekman v. . Third Avenue R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Blaschko v. . WursterNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
- Schneider v. . City of RochesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
- Grill v. WiswallNew York Supreme Court · 1894
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.