5 Cow. 269
Decided February 15, 1826
New York Supreme Court · decided 1826-02-15
On motion for a reference, in behalf of the defendant, it appeared that the cause, being at issue, had been noticed for trial by the plaintiff’s attorney, for the 29th of November last; but on the 26th, the defendant’s attorney served him with an order to stay proceedings, made with a view to this motion. The court agreed that the motion must be granted; but one question was, if it should not be on payment of the costs of the plaintiff, in preparing for trial.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1826-02-15
Cited by 18 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1903
16 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1We think this question comes within the decisions of this court, in the case cited, and other cases, where orders to stay, with a view to the change of venue are obtained, after the cause is noticed for trial. The defendant may take the effect of his motion; but this must be on payment of the costs of the notice, and preparation for trial, to the time when the order was served.
¶2Rule accordingly.