Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Barker Place, as Executor, etc., Respondent, v. Jedediah K. Hayward, Appellant, 1885 — 100 N.Y. 626 · caselaw · US
General
Barker Place, as Executor, etc., Respondent, v. Jedediah K. Hayward, Appellant
100 N.Y. 626·New York Court of Appeals·1885·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Barker Place, as Executor, etc., Respondent, v. Jedediah K. Hayward, Appellant.
Whether a court shall modify or change an order already.made by it is a question addressed to its discretion, and over its exercise an appellate court has no control.
(Argued October 20, 1885 ;
decided October 30, 1885.)
The following is the mem. of opinion herein:
“ On the 16th of April, 1881, the Supreme Court, at Special Term, upon affidavits, and after hearing counsel for both parties, made an order giving an allowance and costs to the defendant, against the plaintiff as executor, adding ‘ not to be paid by plaintiff personally.’ The defendant afterward, upon affidavits and other papers, and a notice to the plaintiff, applied to the court to modify that order by striking therefrom the words ‘not’ and ‘as executor.’ This was denied by the Special Term, and upon appeal to the General Term the order was affirmed. The appeal to this court is from the order. It cannot succeed. Whether a court shall modify or change an order already made by it is a question addressed to its discretion, and over its exercise an appellate court has no control. The appeal should, therefore, be dismissed, with costs.”
J K. Hayward, appellant, in person.
Charles F. Wells for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Danforth, J.,]
Danforth, J.,
reads for dismissal of appeal,
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.