Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

HUGO HERTZBERG, Appellant, v. WILLIAM BAYER et al., Respondents.

FITZSIMONS, Ch. J.

In view of the affidavit submitted by plaintiff's attorney sworn to in person we think that the order appealed from should not have been granted. In the affidavit it appears that in April last this action appeared upon the day calendar; it also appears upon plaintiff's brief submitted upon this appeal that it was marked reserved generally. The Law Journal judges' calendar of April 6, 1899, sustains this statement.

The clerk's certificate as to whether the case was on the general calendar was not obtained by either plaintiff's or defendants' attorneys. If this had been done, the Special Term justice would not have been compelled to decide this motion upon the contradictory statement in the affidavits submitted.

In view of the publication in the Law Journal it is apparent that the statement made by the managing clerk that the case was not on the calendar is not true, but of course was not intentionally false.

The order appealed from is reversed, without costs or disbursements to either party.

O'DWYER, J., concurs.

Order reversed, without costs.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HERTZBERG v. BAYER
(Dec 1, 1899)