Adams v. . Fox

27 N.Y. 640
New York Court of Appeals·Decided September 5, 1863·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

*641 Denio, Ch. J.

It is objected that this motion cannot be entertained, because the return has not been filed, and it is urged that until this is done, this court is not possessed of the case. But we think that when a notice of appeal has been served, and the j) roper undertaking perfected, the case is so far removed from the subordinate court, that we can entertain any application, which the case, in its then condition, may render necessary. Our general rules are based upon that idea, for they allow an order to dismiss an appeal for a default in filing the return.

The appeal which was attempted to be made in this case was premature. The determination of the demurrer, no doubt, entitled the defendant to judgment, unless the plaintiff should amend; but until final judgment was entered, the case was not in a condition to be reviewed here. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Adams v. . Fox, 27 N.Y. 640 (N.Y. 1863).

27 N.Y. 640 (Adams v. . Fox) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carey v. Wright
150 Misc. 555 (New York County Courts, 1934)
Cutting v. Jessmer
101 A.D. 283 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1905)
Abbey v. . Wheeler
62 N.E. 1074 (New York Court of Appeals, 1902)
Howey v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.
15 Misc. 526 (New York Supreme Court, 1896)
Fuller v. Tuska
17 N.Y.S. 356 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1892)
Elwell v. . Johnson
74 N.Y. 80 (New York Court of Appeals, 1878)
Tradesmen's National Bank v. McFeely
10 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 699 (New York Supreme Court, 1875)
Brinkley v. . Brinkley
47 N.Y. 40 (New York Court of Appeals, 1871)
Ferris v. Aspinwall
10 Abb. Pr. 137 (New York Court of Appeals, 1871)
Barkley v. Russ
13 Fla. 589 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1869)