Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Schreyer v. Mayor of New York

The Superior Court of New York City

Decided May 3, 1875Published

Appeal from an order granting defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer.

1Concurrence

Monell, Ch. J. (concurring in the conclusion of the Court).

Without examining the merits of the questions presented upon this appeal, I am satisfied that the order was so wholly discretionary, and did not involve the merits of the action, or affect a substantial right, that it is not the subject of review on appeal.

This subject was fully considered in the Common Pleas in Bowman v. De Peyster (2 Daly 203), which was precisely like the case before us, and it was there held that the order was not appealable.

But later, in this court (Simmons v. Lyons, 35 Sup’r Ct. 555), a motion granted at the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. The New York Ice Company v. . North Western Insurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1861
  2. Harrington v. SladeNew York Supreme Court · 1856
  3. Bowman v. De PeysterNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1867

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API