Colby v. . Town of Day

New York Court of Appeals

Colby v. . Town of Day

69 N.E. 1120, 177 N.Y. 548, 1904 N.Y. LEXIS 977

DecidedJanuary 5, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 69 N.E. 1120 (Colby v. . Town of Day) 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

Colby v. . Town of Day, 69 N.E. 1120, 177 N.Y. 548, 1904 N.Y. LEXIS 977 (N.Y. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Ouriam.

It must be assumed that the judgment herein was reversed by the Appellate Division for errors of law only. (Code Civil Procedure, § 1338; Hinckel v. Stevens, 165 N. Y. 171, 173, and cases cited.) Therefore, the question is presented whether the exception filed by the defendant was sufficient to present any question of law which justified such reversal. We think there was not. The exception was general to the decision of the trial judge and to each and every part thereof, with no specific exception to any particular finding or conclusion. This court has recently held that such an exception was insufficient to present any question of law for review. (Drake v. N. Y. Iron Mine, 156 N. Y. 90.)

It follows that the court below had no authority to reverse the judgment of the Special Term, and hence its judgment must be reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs to the plaintiffs in all the courts.

Parker, Ch. J., G-ray, Bartlett, Martin, Vann and Werner, JJ., concur ; Haight, J., absent.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Ouriam.

It must be assumed that the judgment herein was reversed by the Appellate Division for errors of law only. (Code Civil Procedure, § 1338; Hinckel v. Stevens, 165 N. Y. 171, 173, and cases cited.) Therefore, the question is presented whether the exception filed by the defendant was sufficient to present any question of law which justified such reversal. We think there was not. The exception was general to the decision of the trial judge and to each and every part thereof, with no specific exception to any particular finding or conclusion. This court has recently held that such an exception was insufficient to present any question of law for review. (Drake v. N. Y. Iron Mine, 156 N. Y. 90.)

It follows that the court below had no authority to reverse the judgment of the Special Term, and hence its judgment must be reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs to the plaintiffs in all the courts.

Parker, Ch. J., G-ray, Bartlett, Martin, Vann and Werner, JJ., concur ; Haight, J., absent.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 N.E. 1120, 177 N.Y. 548, 1904 N.Y. LEXIS 977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colby-v-town-of-day-ny-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack