From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Buchholtz v. Florida East Coast R. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 1, 1901
59 App. Div. 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 1901)

Summary

In Buchholtz v. Florida East Coast R. Co. (59 App. Div. 566) the court condemned the practice of directing a reference on a motion to take further proof except in very unusual and exceptional cases, reversed an order directing a reference, and remitted the proceeding to the Special Term for decision. It was there said that if further proof was essential the court should have allowed or directed additional affidavits to be used by either party.

Summary of this case from Eddy v. Spaulding

Opinion

April Term, 1901.

Lyman A. Spalding, for the appellant.

Max Altmayer, for the respondent.

Present — VAN BRUNT, P.J., RUMSEY, PATTERSON, O'BRIEN and INGRAHAM, JJ.


Upon a motion where the facts are undisputed we can find no warrant for the court's sending the matter to a referee to take further proof. Such a practice would entail additional expense and delay, and where both sides have had full opportunity to present all the facts it is usually unnecessary to have a reference. If essential the court could have allowed or directed additional affidavits to be served by either party. It is only in a very unusual and exceptional case that a reference should be ordered to aid the court in deciding a motion.

The principal question here presented was whether the person on whom service was made was the managing agent of the defendant. That the defendant had no property in the State was not disputed The facts bearing upon this principal question were fully presented, and it was the duty of the court on the affidavits to decide the motion.

The order is accordingly reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant to abide the event, and the proceeding remitted to the Special Term for decision.


Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant to abide event, and proceedings remitted to Special Term for decision.


Summaries of

Buchholtz v. Florida East Coast R. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 1, 1901
59 App. Div. 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 1901)

In Buchholtz v. Florida East Coast R. Co. (59 App. Div. 566) the court condemned the practice of directing a reference on a motion to take further proof except in very unusual and exceptional cases, reversed an order directing a reference, and remitted the proceeding to the Special Term for decision. It was there said that if further proof was essential the court should have allowed or directed additional affidavits to be used by either party.

Summary of this case from Eddy v. Spaulding
Case details for

Buchholtz v. Florida East Coast R. Co.

Case Details

Full title:MENDEL BUCHHOLTZ, Respondent, v . FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 1, 1901

Citations

59 App. Div. 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 1901)
69 N.Y.S. 682

Citing Cases

Smith v. Western Pacific Railway Co.

There was no necessity for a reference and it should not have been ordered. ( Buchholtz v. Florida East Coast…

Municipal Mortgage Co. v. 461 8th Ave. Co., Inc.

The mere statement of affiant's conclusion as to the lack of authority upon the part of the alleged agent is…