Hatch v. Wolf

30 How. Pr. 65
New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided November 15, 1865·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Daly, F. J.

This is not an action for a tort, but for the breach of a covenant to keep the premises which had been demised to the defendant in good and tenantable repair, and "the order directing a reference, upon the ground that it required the examination of a long account, is not an order affecting the merits, or which involves a substantial right, and is not appealable. (Dean agt. Empire Mut. Ins. Co. 9 How. 69 ; Bryan agt. Brennan, 7 Id. 359; Ubsdell agt. Root, 7 Hilton, 173.) Even before the Code there might be a reference in an action of covenant, if the examination of a long account were involved. (Diederich agt. Richly, 19 Wend. 110 ; Bloom agt. Potter, 9 Wend. 410; Thomas agt. Reab, 6 Wend. 503.) And if the action is one in which a reference may be ordered, the order of the judge at the special term upon the question, whether the examination of a long account is or is not involved, is not one which the court will reverse on appeal. (Smith agt. Dodd, 3 E. D. Smith, 348; Kennedy agt. Hilton, 1 Hilton, 546.)

Defendant's appeal dismissed.

Judge Brady dissents.

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

Hatch v. Wolf, 30 How. Pr. 65 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1865).

30 How. Pr. 65 (Hatch v. Wolf) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Batchelor v. Albany City Insurance
6 Abb. Pr. 240 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1869)