Fortsmann v. Shulting

107 N.Y. 644
New York Court of Appeals·Decided October 25, 1887·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

107 N.Y. 644 (Fortsmann v. Shulting) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harnett v. Westcott
2 N.Y.S. 10 (Superior Court of New York, 1888)