Fortsmann v. Shulting

New York Court of Appeals

Fortsmann v. Shulting

107 N.Y. 644

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 25, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 107 N.Y. 644 (Fortsmann v. Shulting) 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

Fortsmann v. Shulting, 107 N.Y. 644 (N.Y. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

The following is the mem. handed down:

“ The notice of the order and its entry did not show by indorsement or otherwise the office address or place of business of the attorney serving it, and was, therefore, ineffectual to limit the time of appeal. (Kelly v. Sheehan, 76 N. Y. 325 ; Bockes v. Hathorn, 78 id. 222.)

“ The motion to dismiss the appeal should, therefore, be denied, but without costs.”

Per Curiam mem.

for denial of motion.

All concur.

Motion denied.

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

The following is the mem. handed down:

“ The notice of the order and its entry did not show by indorsement or otherwise the office address or place of business of the attorney serving it, and was, therefore, ineffectual to limit the time of appeal. (Kelly v. Sheehan, 76 N. Y. 325 ; Bockes v. Hathorn, 78 id. 222.)

“ The motion to dismiss the appeal should, therefore, be denied, but without costs.”

Per Curiam mem.

for denial of motion.

All concur.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 N.Y. 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fortsmann-v-shulting-ny-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack