George v. Day

3 Rob. 650
The Superior Court of New York City·Decided December 31, 1864·Published

Opinions

By the Court, Monell, J.

This is an appeal from an order¡ The defendant demurred to the complaint. The plaintiff moved for judgment on account of the frivolousness of the demurrer, under section 247 of the Code; The motion was granted, and the defendant appealed.

The order does not overrule a demurrer, and an appeal cannot, therefore, be taken, under subdivision 2, of section 349, of the Code. Uor does it-come within subdivision 4, of the same section. In this class of cases “judgment ” is ordered against the demurring party, and judgment must accordingly he entered, the demurrer and order for judgment forming a part of the judgment roll.

The “ order ” appealed from is not a judgment. The plaintiff’s damages must he assessed, and costs adjusted, when a judgment in form, as upon a failure to answer, is entered by the clerk. This has not been done in the case before us ; and the appeal is therefore without authority. (Harris v. Hammon, 18 How. Pr. 123. Briggs v. Bergen, 23 N. Y. Rep. 162.)

We have not looked into the merits of the demurrer, as we cannot entertain the appeal from the order. When judgment [651] is entered, the defendant can appeal and have the decision at' special term reviewed upon that appeal.

The appeal must be dismissed, with $10 costs.

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

George v. Day, 3 Rob. 650 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1864).

3 Rob. 650 (George v. Day) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Strader v. Graham
51 U.S. 82 (Supreme Court, 1851)
Briggs v. . Bergen
23 N.Y. 162 (New York Court of Appeals, 1861)
Witherhead v. Allen
28 Barb. 661 (New York Supreme Court, 1859)
Harris v. Hammond
18 How. Pr. 123 (New York Supreme Court, 1859)
Lee v. Ainslie
4 Abb. Pr. 463 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1857)
Ford v. David
3 Abb. Pr. 385 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1856)