Mithell v. Allen
New York Supreme Court
The defendant moved to vacate a rule entered at a previous special term denying a motion made by him, alleging that the grounds upon which the former motion was denied were now satisfactorily explained.
Read the full summary
The defendant moved to vacate a rule entered at a previous special term denying a motion made by him, alleging that the grounds upon which the former motion was denied were now satisfactorily explained. The plaintiff objected that the matter was res judicata, and could not again be heard The defendant relied upon the case of Standard v. Williams, 10 Wendell, 599, where it is said, that if the affidavit of the party opposing a motion be untrue, or if the facts relied upon by him can be explained, so as to show that they ought not to have influence in resisting the motion, the party may apply…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Sutherland, J.
The motion cannot be heard. It is the settled practice that a motion cannot be renewed without leave of the court. The case of Standard v. Williams decides nothing to the contrary of such practice it is there said, the party may apply to the court, upon notice to vacate the rule denying his motion. So he may: but not without leave of the court previously obtained, which is all ways granted, if, in the circumstances of the opposition, there is any thing to excite suspicion of unfairness, or a belief that the party moving is taken by surprise. Indeed it is not unusual…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Belmont v. Erie Railway Co.New York Supreme Court · 1869
- Bellinger v. MartindaleNew York Supreme Court · 1853
- Cazneau v. BryantThe Superior Court of New York City · 1857
- Willet v. FayerweatherNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Robinson v. SatterleeU.S. Circuit Court for the District of California · 1874
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.