Hammond v. . National Life Assn.

New York Court of Appeals

Hammond v. . National Life Assn.

61 N.E. 244, 168 N.Y. 262, 6 Bedell 262, 1901 N.Y. LEXIS 878

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 11, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 61 N.E. 244 (Hammond v. . National Life Assn.) 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

Hammond v. . National Life Assn., 61 N.E. 244, 168 N.Y. 262, 6 Bedell 262, 1901 N.Y. LEXIS 878 (N.Y. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Martin, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying the appellant’s motion to .set aside the attachments and judgment granted and entered in this action. Manifestly, the appellant’s motion was in the action, and its purpose was to obtain an order therein. (Van Arsdale v. King, 155 N. Y. 325; City of Johnstown v. Wade, 157 N. Y. 50.) That fact is not only obvious from the record, but it is equally obvious that the appellant understood and intended it as such. The record discloses that he appeared in the action specially for the purpose of making the motion, and that he never attempted to institute any special proceeding to secure the relief sought. Moreover, in his notice of appeal to the Appellate Division, xvhich was entitled in this action, in describing the order from which the appeal was.taken, he stated that he appealed from an order <c entered in this action on the 30tli day of April, 1900, denying the motion herein to vacate and set aside the warrants of attachments and * * * judgment in this action.”

*264 Therefore, as the order appealed from was an order in an action, and was neither a final judgment nor a final order in a special proceeding, it was not appealable to this court without the allowance of the Appellate Division, which has not been obtained. (Code Civil Procedure, § 190.)

It follows that the appeal must be dismissed, with costs.

Parker, Ch. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight, Vann and Landon, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Martin, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying the appellant’s motion to .set aside the attachments and judgment granted and entered in this action. Manifestly, the appellant’s motion was in the action, and its purpose was to obtain an order therein. (Van Arsdale v. King, 155 N. Y. 325; City of Johnstown v. Wade, 157 N. Y. 50.) That fact is not only obvious from the record, but it is equally obvious that the appellant understood and intended it as such. The record discloses that he appeared in the action specially for the purpose of making the motion, and that he never attempted to institute any special proceeding to secure the relief sought. Moreover, in his notice of appeal to the Appellate Division, xvhich was entitled in this action, in describing the order from which the appeal was.taken, he stated that he appealed from an order <c entered in this action on the 30tli day of April, 1900, denying the motion herein to vacate and set aside the warrants of attachments and * * * judgment in this action.”

*264 Therefore, as the order appealed from was an order in an action, and was neither a final judgment nor a final order in a special proceeding, it was not appealable to this court without the allowance of the Appellate Division, which has not been obtained. (Code Civil Procedure, § 190.)

It follows that the appeal must be dismissed, with costs.

Parker, Ch. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight, Vann and Landon, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 N.E. 244, 168 N.Y. 262, 6 Bedell 262, 1901 N.Y. LEXIS 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammond-v-national-life-assn-ny-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack