Cushman v. Hadfield
New York Court of Appeals
Wm. Watson, of counsel for the appellants, moved upon affidavits, that the remittitur in this action be taken from the files of the supreme court, and that the filing thereof be declared void, on the ground that such filing was.in contempt of an order of one of the judges of this court, and for a reargument.
Read the full summary
Wm. Watson, of counsel for the appellants, moved upon affidavits, that the remittitur in this action be taken from the files of the supreme court, and that the filing thereof be declared void, on the ground that such filing was.in contempt of an order of one of the judges of this court, and for a reargument. In this action, which was brought by J. Holbrook Cushman and others, executors, &c.,—judgment in favor of the defendants, Amos F. Hatfield and others, was on February 11, 1873, affirmed by this court with costs, on the authority of a recent decision of the coinmisión of appeals in the…
1Opinion of the CourtRapallo, J.
The only question of any general importance involved in this motion, is that of the validity of an order of a single judge of this court staying the issue or filing of a remittitur. Rule 16 of this court provides that either of the judges may make orders to stay proceedings, which, when served with papers and notice of motion, shall stay the proceedings according to the terms of the order; and it is claimed on the part of the respondents that under this rule the order made in the present case staying the filing of the remittitur was not operative, for the reason that motion papers and notice…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Legg v. OverbaghCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1830
- Murray v. BlatchfordCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1829
- McFarlan v. WatsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1849