Altmayer v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.

Superior Court of New York

Altmayer v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.

14 N.Y.S. 311, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1964

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedMay 4, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 14 N.Y.S. 311 (Altmayer v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Altmayer v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co., 14 N.Y.S. 311, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1964 (superctny 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is objected as a sufficient cause for reversal that certain findings and conclusions of law, found at the request of the defendants, were ■omitted from the decision made by the judge. In such a condition of the case ■there is no subject-matter of an appeal. There is no action of the court which may be reviewed. If the omission were irregular, the defendants might have made a motion for the correction of the omission, and they would have a right to appeal from a denial of the motion. In the absence of such a motion and ■order, the omission appears to be without objection on the part of the defendants, and that evinces a consent that the ease proceed and appeal be heard on the decision as made. The other objections have been decided unfavorably to the defendants by other cases. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

It is objected as a sufficient cause for reversal that certain findings and conclusions of law, found at the request of the defendants, were ■omitted from the decision made by the judge. In such a condition of the case ■there is no subject-matter of an appeal. There is no action of the court which may be reviewed. If the omission were irregular, the defendants might have made a motion for the correction of the omission, and they would have a right to appeal from a denial of the motion. In the absence of such a motion and ■order, the omission appears to be without objection on the part of the defendants, and that evinces a consent that the ease proceed and appeal be heard on the decision as made. The other objections have been decided unfavorably to the defendants by other cases. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.Y.S. 311, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/altmayer-v-metropolitan-elevated-railway-co-superctny-1891.