Mugler v. Castleton Hotel and Realty Co.

6 Citing cases

  1. Hancock v. State Highway Comm

    347 Mo. 944 (Mo. 1941)   Cited 8 times

    Hasty v. Pierpoint, 146 Kan. 517, 72 P.2d 69; Barger v. Beach, 127 S.W. 121; Sharp v. Mayor of New York, 18 How. Pr. 213. (a) If the bars should be let down so that trial courts would have the right indiscriminately to submit cases to referees in the place of juries this would greatly increase the delays of the law, the expense of litigation and the opportunity for corruption. Magown v. Sinclair, 5 Daly, 70; Mugler v. Castleton Hotel Realty Co., 153 N.Y. 1026; Snyder v. Crutcher, 137 Mo. App. 133. (b) Our Bill of Rights in the Missouri Constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed.

  2. Matter of Lee

    220 N.Y. 532 (N.Y. 1917)   Cited 50 times

    ) The Supreme Court and the Surrogate's Court have concurrent jurisdiction in many respects, and the seemly administration of the law demands that their orders do not conflict. ( Garlock v. Vandevort, 128 N.Y. 374; Schuehle v. Reiman, 86 N.Y. 270; Sloan v. Beard, 125 App. Div. 625; Platt v. N.Y. Sea Beach Ry. Co., 170 N.Y. 451, 458; Silver Co. v. Waterman, 127 App. Div. 339; Mugler v. Castleton Hotel Realty Co., 168 App. Div. 492.) We, therefore, hold that while the surrogate had full jurisdiction to appoint De Witt H. Lyon general guardian of the person and property of William Crossman Lee, yet the guardian should not have taken the boy out of the possession of the Lees, which was the possession of the Supreme Court, without application to that court.

  3. Davidson v. Sterngass

    279 App. Div. 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)   Cited 7 times

    In our opinion the pleadings and affidavits submitted were insufficient to establish that the trial of this action will require the examination of a long account, within the meaning of the statute. (Cf. Cassidy v. McFarland, 139 N.Y. 201; Hemmerich v. City of Geneva, 251 App. Div. 105; Dauch v. Great Neck Holding Corp., 213 App. Div. 881; Mugler v. Castleton Hotel Realty Co., 168 App. Div. 492.) A compulsory reference will not be ordered upon a showing of a mere possibility that a long account will be involved and that the several items thereof will become centers of independent controversy.

  4. White v. Sebring

    228 App. Div. 413 (N.Y. App. Div. 1930)   Cited 2 times

    The motion could not be renewed except upon papers showing additional facts by way of excuse and justification for defendant's default. ( Mugler v. Castleton Hotel Realty Co., 168 App. Div. 492; Platt v. N.Y. Sea Beach R. Co., 170 N.Y. 451. ) Neither the facts nor the occasion bring this case within the scope of the inherent power of the court to set aside its judgments at any time upon a proper showing.

  5. Dauch v. Great Neck Holding Corporation

    213 App. Div. 881 (N.Y. App. Div. 1925)   Cited 1 times

    An order of reference in such case was unauthorized over the objection of the defendant property owner. ( Mugler v. Castleton H. R. Co., 168 App. Div. 492, and cases cited.) While the sole objection to a reference in this class of litigation is the item of the expense of reference, it would seem that this might be obviated by reference to one of the official referees.

  6. Matter of Jacqueline F

    94 Misc. 2d 96 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1978)   Cited 8 times

    The Court of Appeals resolved the conflicting orders with the following language (p 539): "The Supreme Court and the Surrogate's Court have concurrent jurisdiction in many respects, and the seemly administration of the law demands that their orders do not conflict. (Garlock v. Vandevort, 128 N.Y. 374; Schuehle v. Reiman, 86 N.Y. 270; Sloan v. Beard, 125 App. Div. 625; Platt v. N.Y. Sea Beach Ry. Co., 170 N.Y. 451, 458; Silver Co. v. Waterman, 127 App. Div. 339; Mugler v. Castleton Hotel Realty Co., 168 App. Div. 492.) "We, therefore, hold that while the surrogate had full jurisdiction to appoint De Witt H. Lyon general guardian of the person and property of William Crossman Lee, yet the guardian should not have taken the boy out of the possession of the Lees, which was the possession of the Supreme Court, without application to that court.