Cataract Journal Company v. . Fuller

116 N.E. 1037, 220 N.Y. 766, 1917 N.Y. LEXIS 1244
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 1, 1917
StatusPublished

This text of 116 N.E. 1037 (Cataract Journal Company v. . Fuller) 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
Cataract Journal Company v. . Fuller, 116 N.E. 1037, 220 N.Y. 766, 1917 N.Y. LEXIS 1244 (N.Y. 1917).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order in an action which purports to “ enforce • a stipulation ” made therein by directing appellant to pay to respondent the sum of $650. The stipulation recites that the parties have consented to such payment and provides for the discontinuance of the action. The Appellate Division affirmed the order of the Special Term but did not allow an appeal to this court. The appeal maynot be taken as of right. The order does not finally determine ¿.special proceeding nor grant a new trial and it is not a final judgment in an action. This court has no jurisdiction (Van Arsdale v. King, 155 N. Y. 325, 330), and the appeal should be dismissed, with costs, without considering the questions presented by the briefs of counsel.

Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

Van Arsdale v. . King
49 N.E. 866 (New York Court of Appeals, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 N.E. 1037, 220 N.Y. 766, 1917 N.Y. LEXIS 1244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cataract-journal-company-v-fuller-ny-1917.