Case Name: The People, App'lts, v. Mark Mayer, Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-10-24
Citations: 33 N.Y. St. Rep. 993
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People, App’lts, v. Mark Mayer, Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 33
Pages: 993–994

Head Matter:
The People, App’lts, v. Mark Mayer, Resp’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed October 24, 1890.)
Appeal.
An appeal will not lie on the ground that a motion for a receiver was not decided as speedily as counsel thinks it should have heen.
Appeal from so much of two orders as dissolved and refused to continue certain existing injunctions and as failed and omitted to resettle the first order, or to appoint a temporary receiver therein, or except after a delay of several days.
Chas. JJ. Phelps, for app’lts; M. S. Gruilerman, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Van Brunt, P. J.
The only defendant appearing upon the record does not seem to have ever appeared in the action or upon the motion.
The action has been discontinued as to the only defendants who did appear upon the motion and whose rights were adjudicated upon by che order of August 13, 1890.
As we understand the appellants' position, their appeal is founded upon the claim that the court did not pass upon their motion for a receiver of the defendant as soon as it should have done. It is to be observed that the court only dissolved the temporary injunction as to the defendants, who were then parties to the record and as to whom this action has been discontinued, and as to the sheriffs of Mew York and Kings counties, who were not . parties tó the record, and did not pass upon the application for a temporary receiver, if any such was made. It does not appear that any such application was made prior to the 15th day of August, upon which day a motion for such receiver appears to have been granted. We see no ground upon which any appeal can be founded. Because a motion, if made, is not decided quite as speedily as counsel thinks it should be, affords no ground of appeal.
The appeal should be dismissed.
Brady and Daniels, JJ., concur.