Case ID: nys_87/html/1136-10.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

HOADLEY, Respondent, v. LEOPOLD et al., Appellants.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    April 8, 1904.)
    Action by Alfred H. Hoadley against James Leopold and another. From an interlocutory order restraining defendants pendente lite from selling certain stocks, they appeal. Affirmed.
    Court-land V. Anable, for appellants.
    William N. Cohen, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

We think that the questions involved should be disposed of at the trial, and not upon affidavits; and without, therefore, considering or passing upon the merits, which should be left until the trial can be had, we think that the injunction order should remain. Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to abide the event.