Case Name: John G. Avery, Resp't, v. The New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co., App'lt
Court: Buffalo Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-03-24
Citations: 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 239
Docket Number: 
Parties: John G. Avery, Resp’t, v. The New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co., App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 30
Pages: 239–240

Head Matter:
John G. Avery, Resp’t, v. The New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co., App’lt.
(Superior Court of Buffalo,
General Term,
Filed March 24, 1890.)
Appeal—Postponement op trial.
A motion to stay the trial of an action until the trial of one subsequently brought, or until the determination of an appeal from the order refusing such stay, is addressed to the discretion of the court, and the exercise of such discretion will not be interfered with.
Appeal from order refusing to postpone trial.
James F. Gluck, for app’lt; Truman C. White, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The court at trial term denied a motion made by the defendant to stay the trial of this cause until the trial of •one subsequently brought, and also denied a motion made by the defendant to stay the trial of this cause until the determination, of an appeal from the first order.
The motion to stay this action until the trial of the one subsequently brought was addressed to the sound discretion of the court. It affected no substantial right, and we cannot see that there was an abuse of discretion.
Such being the case we do not think the general term should interfere. Schmidt v. Levy, 61 Barb., 496.
The latter portion of the order refusing to stay the trial until the determination of an appeal from the former portion of the order, was also addressed to the discretion of the court.
We do not think this order is appealable, or that the discretion of the trial court should be interfered with. Martin v. Hicks, 51 How., 355.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs, and disbursements.