Clapp v. Atterbury

The Superior Court of New York City

Clapp v. Atterbury

57 Jones & S. 579, 25 N.Y. St. Rep. 808

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedJune 28, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 57 Jones & S. 579 (Clapp v. Atterbury) 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

Clapp v. Atterbury, 57 Jones & S. 579, 25 N.Y. St. Rep. 808 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only ground on which the appellants could have claimed the order should have been vacated, was that the order was erroneous. It was not claimed that the former order was made without [580]*580notice or that there was any irregularity of practice as to it. The order was valid until reversed for error. The learned judge below was not bound to hear an appeal from the order. Or, if he still thought there was no error, even if it were supposed that error existed, a refusal to vacate was not injurious to appellant, for he, unless there had been laches, could appeal and have the erroneous order reversed. And further this court cannot proceed to inquire if there were error in the order so long as it is not brought before it upon an appeal.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The only ground on which the appellants could have claimed the order should have been vacated, was that the order was erroneous. It was not claimed that the former order was made without [580]*580notice or that there was any irregularity of practice as to it. The order was valid until reversed for error. The learned judge below was not bound to hear an appeal from the order. Or, if he still thought there was no error, even if it were supposed that error existed, a refusal to vacate was not injurious to appellant, for he, unless there had been laches, could appeal and have the erroneous order reversed. And further this court cannot proceed to inquire if there were error in the order so long as it is not brought before it upon an appeal.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 Jones & S. 579, 25 N.Y. St. Rep. 808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clapp-v-atterbury-nysuperctnyc-1889.