Case Name: In re Newcombe
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-03
Citations: 18 N.Y.S. 550
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re Newcombe.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 18
Pages: 550–550

Head Matter:
In re Newcombe.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
March, 1892.)
Frivolous Appeals.
In a probate proceeding, contestant appealed from an order denying her motion-to adjourn, on the grounds (1) that an appeal was pending from an order denying a motion to transfer the issues to the court of common pleas; (2) that counsel was-engaged before a justice of the supreme court; and (3) that she desired to examine by a commission an important witness in another state. Held, that the appeal was frivolous.
Appeal from surrogate’s court, New York county.
Proceeding for the probate of the will of Bichard S. Newcombe, deceased. Ida Plorine Lederer, a contestant, moved to adjourn for the following reasons: First, that an appeal was pending to the supreme court from an order denying a motion to transfer the issues to the court of common pleas for a trial before a jury; second, that her counsel was engaged before a justice of the supreme court; and, third, that she desired to examine by commission an important and necessary witness in San Francisco, Cal. The motion was-denied, and contestant appeals.
Affirmed.
r Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ.
Ira Leo Bamberger, for appellant. Donohue, Newcombe <& Cardozo, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The appeal herein is clearly frivolous, and the order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.