Caldwell v. . the City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Caldwell v. . the City of New York

104 N.E. 126, 210 N.Y. 576, 1914 N.Y. LEXIS 1307

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 10, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 N.E. 126 (Caldwell v. . the City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Caldwell v. . the City of New York, 104 N.E. 126, 210 N.Y. 576, 1914 N.Y. LEXIS 1307 (N.Y. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is impossible for this court to pass upon the important questions of law involved in this case unless they shall be brought up hereafter by the defendant’s appeal from a judgment of affirmance against him *577 after a new trial conducted in accordance with the opinion of the Appellate Division. We are obliged to dismiss the present appeal upon the authority of Wright v. Smith (209 N. Y. 249), because there was an appeal to the Appellate Division from an order denying a motion for a new trial as well as an appeal from the judgment; and while the judgment was reversed the order of reversal does not show an affirmance so far as the facts were concerned. This is essential to give the Court of Appeals jurisdiction upon an appeal of this character.

The appeal should he dismissed, with costs.

Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Werner, Chase, Collin, Cuddebacic and Hogan, JJ., concur; Miller, J., not sitting.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

It is impossible for this court to pass upon the important questions of law involved in this case unless they shall be brought up hereafter by the defendant’s appeal from a judgment of affirmance against him *577 after a new trial conducted in accordance with the opinion of the Appellate Division. We are obliged to dismiss the present appeal upon the authority of Wright v. Smith (209 N. Y. 249), because there was an appeal to the Appellate Division from an order denying a motion for a new trial as well as an appeal from the judgment; and while the judgment was reversed the order of reversal does not show an affirmance so far as the facts were concerned. This is essential to give the Court of Appeals jurisdiction upon an appeal of this character.

The appeal should he dismissed, with costs.

Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Werner, Chase, Collin, Cuddebacic and Hogan, JJ., concur; Miller, J., not sitting.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 N.E. 126, 210 N.Y. 576, 1914 N.Y. LEXIS 1307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caldwell-v-the-city-of-new-york-ny-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack