From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kroner v. Reilly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1900
52 App. Div. 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 1900)

Opinion

June Term, 1900.


The exercise of the power to order restitution under section 1323 of the Code of Civil Procedure is discretionary. ( Kidd v. Curry, 29 Hun, 215.) The successful appellant may be remitted to his action. ( Lott v. Swezey, 29 Barb. 87.) The disobedience of an order of restitution is punishable as a contempt. ( Devlin v. Hinman, 40 App. Div. 101; affd., 161 N.Y. 115.) Under the peculiar circumstances of the present case we do not think the defeated respondent should be subjected to so harsh a remedy, although she may be and should be compelled to repay the money which she has received if that end can be obtained by judgment and execution. Motion for restitution denied, without costs.


Summaries of

Kroner v. Reilly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1900
52 App. Div. 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 1900)
Case details for

Kroner v. Reilly

Case Details

Full title:Marie Kroner, Respondent, v. John F. Reilly, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 1, 1900

Citations

52 App. Div. 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 1900)