Case Name: Casper C. Childs, receiver, &c. plaintiff and respondent, vs. George Fox et al. defendants and appellants
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1864-03
Citations: 2 Rob. 650
Docket Number: 
Parties: Casper C. Childs, receiver, &c. plaintiff and respondent, vs. George Fox et al. defendants and appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 25
Pages: 650–653

Head Matter:
Casper C. Childs, receiver, &c. plaintiff and respondent, vs. George Fox et al. defendants and appellants.
On the hearing of an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be continued, the plaintiff was allowed by new affidavits to support his complaint a&d explain affidavits réad by the defendants denying the facts set ' forth in the papers on which such injunction was granted. Seld that this was an exercise o.f discretion on the part of the justice at chambers, over which the general term has no control, and which it could not review,
(Before Moncrief, Barbour and Garvin, JJ.)
Heard March, 1864.
Appeal from an order made by a justice at chambers, conT tinning a preliminary injunction,
J. F. Walton, for the appellants.
B. T. Kissam, for the respondents.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Garvin, J.
The defendants, on the hearing in this action, read several affidavits denying the facts set forth in the plaintiff's complaint and the affidavit on the part of the plaintiff; whereupon the plaintiff, on application to the court, was allowed to read affidavits, explaining the affidavits on the part of the defendants and in support of his complaint. This was an exercise of discretion on the part of the justice at chambers, over which we have no control, and cannot review. Rad time been asked by the defendants to answer the new and additional affidavits, it would doubtless have been accorded to them, so that no harm could have resulted to the defendants. Besides, § 220 of the Code, provides that upon its appearing satisfactorily to .the court or judge by the .affidavit .of the plaintiff, or any other person, that sufficient grounds exist therefor, the injunction may be -granted. The affidavit accompanying the complaint is very positive, and details the facts with much care and particularity, and it may very well be that the justice who heard the motion was abundantly satisfied upon that affidavit alone, that satisfactory cause existed, and was made out by it, for continuing the preliminary injunction. That was1 a question on the facts for him to decide. Entertaining these views, I am of opinion -the order made at chambers should be affirmed, with costs.