Bacon v. Lowman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bacon v. Lowman

40 N.Y.S. 1139

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 40 N.Y.S. 1139 (Bacon v. Lowman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bacon v. Lowman, 40 N.Y.S. 1139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

LANDON, J.

The evidence supports the findings. The objection of the executors to the testimony of Stanchfield was in violation of the order of the special term which permitted the defendants to answer. This order recites that it was made upon consent of counsel, and upon stipulation that objection under Code, § 829, should not be taken. If the order is false in its recitals, the executors should have moved to resettle or correct it. The notice of appeal seeks to bring this order before us for review, but we do not review orders granted upon consent. The appealing party should have either opposed the motion for the order, or made some motion to resettle, vacate, modify, or correct it, and, if unsuccessful, there would be an order that we could review. The other objections do not strike us as of force. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

LANDON, J.

The evidence supports the findings. The objection of the executors to the testimony of Stanchfield was in violation of the order of the special term which permitted the defendants to answer. This order recites that it was made upon consent of counsel, and upon stipulation that objection under Code, § 829, should not be taken. If the order is false in its recitals, the executors should have moved to resettle or correct it. The notice of appeal seeks to bring this order before us for review, but we do not review orders granted upon consent. The appealing party should have either opposed the motion for the order, or made some motion to resettle, vacate, modify, or correct it, and, if unsuccessful, there would be an order that we could review. The other objections do not strike us as of force. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 N.Y.S. 1139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bacon-v-lowman-nyappdiv-1896.