Hatch v. Wolf
This text of 30 How. Pr. 65 (Hatch v. Wolf) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
30 How. Pr. 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatch-v-wolf-nyctcompl-1865.