Buell v. Searle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buell v. Searle

41 N.Y.S. 1108, 75 N.Y. St. Rep. 1474

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 41 N.Y.S. 1108 (Buell v. Searle) 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

Buell v. Searle, 41 N.Y.S. 1108, 75 N.Y. St. Rep. 1474 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

PER' CURIAM.

It appearing that the order of the special term, held March 30, 1896, and subsequent orders, denying motion for a rehearing, were heard upon a remittitur, and a judgment entered thereon, which do not express the judgment of the court of appeals, the remittitur having been subsequently amended by that court in June, 1896 (44 N. E. 1129), it is deemed proper that the aforesaid orders should be vacated without costs to either party, and that the order in the case of Yan Gamp against Searle should be reversed, without prejudice to the moving party to apply to the supreme court to make the judgment of the court of appeals, as expressed in its amended remittitur, the judgment of the supreme court, and without prejudice to any application the Orleans County National Bank and John G. Sawyer may make for further relief. It is not necessary to determine whether the application for an order distributing the fund should be in the action in which Yan Camp is plaintiff, or in the action in which Buell is plaintiff.

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

PER' CURIAM.

It appearing that the order of the special term, held March 30, 1896, and subsequent orders, denying motion for a rehearing, were heard upon a remittitur, and a judgment entered thereon, which do not express the judgment of the court of appeals, the remittitur having been subsequently amended by that court in June, 1896 (44 N. E. 1129), it is deemed proper that the aforesaid orders should be vacated without costs to either party, and that the order in the case of Yan Gamp against Searle should be reversed, without prejudice to the moving party to apply to the supreme court to make the judgment of the court of appeals, as expressed in its amended remittitur, the judgment of the supreme court, and without prejudice to any application the Orleans County National Bank and John G. Sawyer may make for further relief. It is not necessary to determine whether the application for an order distributing the fund should be in the action in which Yan Camp is plaintiff, or in the action in which Buell is plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 N.Y.S. 1108, 75 N.Y. St. Rep. 1474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buell-v-searle-nyappdiv-1896.