Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. . Tomlinson

58 N.Y. 215, 1874 N.Y. LEXIS 490
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 22, 1874
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 58 N.Y. 215 (Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. . Tomlinson) 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
Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. . Tomlinson, 58 N.Y. 215, 1874 N.Y. LEXIS 490 (N.Y. 1874).

Opinion

*216 Rapallo, J.

Conceding that it was discretionary with the ' court at Special Term whether or not to grant leave to the plaintiff to bring an action upon the alleged judgment, yet we think that the General Term erred in dismissing the appeal from the order made at Special Term granting such leave. We have repeatedly held that, although this court is limited in the review of orders to. such as do not involve any question of discretion, yet that no such limitation is imposed upon the General Term in reviewing orders made at Special Term; and that where an order which affects a substantial right is made at Special Term the party appealing therefrom to the General Term is entitled to have it reviewed .there, notwithstanding that it involves questions of discretion ; and that a refusal by the General Term to entertain the appeal, and pass upon its merits, is an error of law reviewable in this court. (People v. N. Y. C. R. R., 29 N. Y., 418; Matter of Duff, 10 Abb. Pr. [N. S.], 416; Howell v. Mills, 53 N. Y., 322.)

We are of opinion that the General Term should have reviewed the order upon its merits, and that the dismissal of the appeal was, therefore, erroneous. The case discloses facts which might have justified a reversal of the order made at" Special Term, and we cannot say that such would not have been the result had the General Term entertained the appeal and considered the case upon its merits. It is, to say the least, questionable whether there was any judgment upon which an action could properly be founded.

The order of dismissal should be reversed, with costs, and the case remanded to the Supreme Court to hear and determine the appeal.

All concur.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Related

MacKenzie & Shea v. R. I. Hospital Trust Co.
122 A. 774 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1923)
In re Dietz
132 A.D. 641 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1909)
In re Burke
125 A.D. 889 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)
Lowenthal v. Lowenthal
22 N.Y.S. 858 (New York Supreme Court, 1893)
In re Adler's Estate
15 N.Y.S. 227 (New York Supreme Court, 1891)
Schwab v. Adler
67 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 481 (New York Supreme Court, 1891)
Springsteene v. Gillett
37 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 260 (New York Supreme Court, 1883)
Jemison v. Citizens' Savings Bank of Jefferson
85 N.Y. 546 (New York Court of Appeals, 1881)
Hill v. Alvord
26 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 77 (New York Supreme Court, 1879)
Collins v. Collins
17 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 272 (New York Supreme Court, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 N.Y. 215, 1874 N.Y. LEXIS 490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanover-fire-ins-co-v-tomlinson-ny-1874.