Havemeyer v. Brooklyn Sugar Refining Co.
New York Supreme Court
Motion by plaintiffs to vacate interlocutory judg7 ment for irregularity. The nature of the action is stated in the report of the proceedings for the appointment of receivers (25 .Abb. V, C. 438). The following was the interlocutory judgment ■entered on the 15th day of November, 1890, by direction of Mr. Justice Pratt at the special term.
Read the full summary
Motion by plaintiffs to vacate interlocutory judg7 ment for irregularity. The nature of the action is stated in the report of the proceedings for the appointment of receivers (25 .Abb. V, C. 438). The following was the interlocutory judgment ■entered on the 15th day of November, 1890, by direction of Mr. Justice Pratt at the special term. “The plaintiffs in this action having commenced the same to wind úp the combination known as the Sugar Refineries Company, and for other relief, and it appearing that the defendants named in the foregoing title as companies are in fact corporations, and have…
1Opinion of the CourtPratt, J.
This is a motion by plaintiffs to vacate the interlocutory judgment entered herein November 15, 1890, on the ground of irregularity. The irregularity which they allege is that the defendants’ time to answer had not expired. The parties who are prejudiced do not make the motion ; it is made by plaintiffs alone. So long as the former are satisfied with the judgment, this irregularity need not concern the plaintiffs.
But plaintiffs, through their counsel, allege that they are prejudiced by the judgment. In answer to that contention, it is to be noted that the judgment grants them substantially…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Albany City Savings Institution v. . BurdickNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Hallett & Davis v. HallettNew York Court of Chancery · 1829
- Kerr v. . BlodgettNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Piedmont & Arlington Life Insurance v. MaurySupreme Court of Virginia · 1881
- Derham v. . LeeNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hilton Bridge Construction Co. v. FosterNew York Supreme Court · 1899
- Lloyd v. BallantineNew York Supreme Court · 1897