Caro v. Elevated Railway Co.

The Superior Court of New York City

Caro v. Elevated Railway Co.

16 Jones & S. 544

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedNovember 6, 1882

StatusPublished

This text of 16 Jones & S. 544 (Caro v. Elevated Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Caro v. Elevated Railway Co., 16 Jones & S. 544 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

The court at G-eneral Term held:

Dorsheimer, Bacon & Deyo, for appellants. Julian T. Davies and Roger Foster, for respondents.

“After settlement of a general term order and the taxation of costs, the entry of judgment follows as matter of course. It is the clerk’s duty to see that the judgment conforms to the order. Neither the law nor the practice of the court requires notice of entry of judgment to be given. The question was made, not that the judgment did not follow the order, but that the judgment did not express the intent of the court. This was not a question for the special term to pass upon.

Opinion Per Curiam.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs.

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

The court at G-eneral Term held:

Dorsheimer, Bacon & Deyo, for appellants. Julian T. Davies and Roger Foster, for respondents.

“After settlement of a general term order and the taxation of costs, the entry of judgment follows as matter of course. It is the clerk’s duty to see that the judgment conforms to the order. Neither the law nor the practice of the court requires notice of entry of judgment to be given. The question was made, not that the judgment did not follow the order, but that the judgment did not express the intent of the court. This was not a question for the special term to pass upon.

Opinion Per Curiam.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Jones & S. 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caro-v-elevated-railway-co-nysuperctnyc-1882.