Case ID: silv-sup_2/html/0355-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Macomber, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Paul Williams, Appellant, v.William Hays, Respondent.
    
      Supreme Court, First Department, General Term,
    
    
      May 24, 1889.
    
      Appeal. Stay.—A motion for a stay of an action until the hearing, upon appeal, of a ease pending in another court invokes the exercise of the discretion of the court, and, when it has been fairly and properly exercised, a denial of the motion will not be disturbed.
    Appeal from so much of an order as denies a motion for a stay of the action, pending an appeal in another action to the general term of the superior "court.
    
      George A. Black, for appellant.
    Goodrich, Deady & Goodrich, for respondent.
   Macomber, J.

The decision upon the appeal by the plaintiff from an order permitting the appellant to file a supplemental answer (23 N. Y. State Rep. 489), alleging the result of the trial in the superior court of the city of New York, in the case of Hays v. The Phoenix Insurance Company, practically decides this motion also. That portion of the order, not appealed from, granted a stay pending this appeal, and properly denied a stay until the hearing upon appeal of the case pending in the superior court of the city of New York in the action brought by this defendant against the insurance company. Such stay was obviously all the court should have granted, and the discretion of the court seems to have been fairly exercised, and should not be disturbed.

Order appealed from affirmed, with costs.

Van Brunt, Ch. J., and Bartlett, J., concur.