Case ID: nys_78/html/0882-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(38 Misc. Rep. 819.)
    HOENIG v. PAINE et al.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    June, 1902.)
    1. Order to Show Cause — When Returnable.
    An order is not void because the order to show cause preliminary to its making was made returnable in more than four days.
    Appeal from special term.
    Action by Max Hoenig against J. Overton Paine and others. From certain orders, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before HASCALL and DELEHANTY, JJ.
    Adna G. Bowen, for appellant.
    George R. Bristor, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

Bearing in mind the suggestions of the appellant, in which he declares that “wading through this mass of papers to determine whether Judge O’Dwyer was right or not is like looking for a needle in a haystack. We trust, however, the court will not despair,” — we say that the court has not despaired. It has carefully read through the papers and proceedings involved in the appeal, has concluded that the making of all three orders complained against was entirely within the discretion of the court below, and that the’ orders need not and should not be disturbed. The principal objection taken by the appellant concerning the validity of the order of March 14th is upon the ground that, because the order to show cause, preliminary to its making, was returnable in more than four days, it was void. As to this we are referred to a recent decision (In re Ferris, 37 Misc. Rep. 606, 76 N. Y. Supp. 159) which seems to bear out the assertion that the court had the power. For these reasons, with the passing remark that there are good grounds for the orders made, we conclude that the same should all be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements upon appeal in each case.

Orders affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements upon appeal in each case.